<![CDATA[The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley]]>https://hleehurley.substack.comhttps://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qbZA!,w_256,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9ebd64d3-6f67-4f55-aa8c-fb5ce92e8acc_609x609.pngThe Trans Agenda by Lee Hurleyhttps://hleehurley.substack.comSubstackSun, 21 Jun 2026 21:50:02 GMT<![CDATA[Moving to Patreon, come with me?]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/moving-to-patreon-come-with-mehttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/moving-to-patreon-come-with-meWed, 30 Jul 2025 14:03:19 GMTThe time has come to stop posting here. If I’m honest, I shouldn’t have started in the first place. That’s on me, I took the lazy option and, once I had built a decent-sized audience, I didn’t want to have start again on yet another platform.

It’s no secret this place has a Nazi problem, which is growing, and I can’t continue to contribute to that.

I have another account set up on Patreon which runs along the same sort of lines as here. All posts are free, so if you’ve subscribed for a year here (thank you), you can still get all the same content. If you have any problems, please get in touch with me via Bluesky.

I don’t really know what else to say, other than thank you everyone who has supported me here, and I hope you understand why I am making this decision.

The Trans Agenda on Patreon can be found here, hopefully I’ll see you there where I will be rolling out new features throughout the rest of the year!

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: Labour go silent on Peggie]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-ehrc-guidance-inhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-ehrc-guidance-inWed, 30 Jul 2025 12:31:25 GMTNEWS

UK & IRELAND

Rape crisis centre launches trans-exclusionary group after legal settlement [BBC]

  • A Brighton-based rape crisis charity has agreed to run a new “biological women only” support group following legal action from a woman who objected to trans women attending. Survivors’ Network, which had previously defended inclusive women-only sessions, reached a settlement with claimant “Sarah”.

    The new pilot scheme will exclude trans women, trans men and non-binary people, while the existing inclusive group will continue.

    The move clearly undermines trans survivors’ access to vital support, creating a segregated model based on nonsensical biological definitions rather than reality.

FOI reveals EHRC bias towards gender critical lobbyists [Queer AF]

  • A freedom of information request by the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC) uncovered over 100 pages of emails showing close links between the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and gender critical groups, including Sex Matters and Transgender Trend. The emails reveal private meetings with the EHRC Chair and CEO, preferential consultation access, and incorporation of lobbyists’ proposals into official guidance. One meeting was kept secret to avoid pre-election scrutiny.

Sandy Peggie drops racial slurs during her own employment tribunal

  • Recalled to refute allegations she made racist comments, Sandie Peggie said, under oath, “I had my first job in a shop called P*ki Ali's and I worked there for a year and had a good relationship with Ali. I socialised in a pub, The Country Inn in Kirkcaldy, and it was owned at the time by a P*ki called Jav, that was just how we described [them].


    "Pakistani is the politically correct word, but I grew up using P*ki and they were quite happy at the time."

    Asked about mocking Dr Upton’s appearance, Peggie said, “It’s just dark humour.” At Monday’s hearing, fellow nurse, Fiona Wishart, had said that Peggie had made “derogatory” remarks about Dr Upton, calling her as a “weirdo” and a “freak”, and referred to her as it as “it”.

    You can read more in THE PAPERS below.

POLITICS

Labour silent after backing Sandie Peggie [The National]

  • Scottish Labour has gone quiet over its support for NHS nurse Sandie Peggie after her racist and transphobic comments were revealed in her employment tribunal. Peggie, suspended for allegedly bullying trans doctor Beth Upton, had previously received strong backing from senior Labour figures.

    Despite earlier public support, Labour MPs and MSPs have refused to comment on the latest turn of events. You can see the full article below in THE PAPERS.

MEDIA

Katie Neeves shortlisted again for major diversity award [Hinckley Times]

Katie Neeves shortlisted again for major diversity award Trans activist Katie Neeves, founder of Cool2BTrans, has been shortlisted for the National Diversity Awards’ Positive Role Model: LGBT prize for the second year running. Neeves, from Stoney Stanton, said her work aims to support trans people and challenge misinformation: “My aim is to reach out to trans people who may be struggling, to show them it’s okay to be trans, because it really is okay to be trans. In fact, it’s more than okay.” She criticised recent anti-trans legislation and misinformation, saying it makes her advocacy “more important than ever”. Winners will be announced on 19 September in Liverpool.

  • Katie Neeves, founder of Cool2BTrans, has been shortlisted for the National Diversity Awards’ Positive Role Model: LGBT prize for the second year running. Neeves said her work aims to support trans people and challenge misinformation: “My aim is to reach out to trans people who may be struggling, to show them it’s okay to be trans, because it really is okay to be trans. In fact, it’s more than okay.”


    Winners will be announced on 19 September in Liverpool.

THE PAPERS

  • The most notable aspect of the papers today is their striking lack of interest in the closing days of Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal. Peggie faced accusations of using racist and transphobic language, sharing racist “jokes”, and even using racist language while giving evidence.

    Until this week, newspapers had been breathless in their coverage, relentlessly pursuing Dr Upton, whose only “offence” is being trans. This was Peggie’s tribunal, not Dr Upton’s, yet that is not where the majority of the focus fell. The Telegraph, Mail and Times all ignored yesterday’s revelations, despite having championed Peggie repeatedly in previous coverage.

    Prominent anti‑trans activists have also refused to condemn Peggie’s comments. Maya Forstater called them “private”, while Sonia Sodha, formerly of the Observer and now with the New European, posted on social media: "Well, having watched the last couple of days of the Peggie v NHS Fife tribunal, I have to say the word "witch hunt" feels more apt than ever. Grim tactics deployed by NHS Fife's counsel to try and undermine women's legal rights to female-only changing facilities at work.

    "At times it felt like the KC was implying people who privately share a racist joke, or who are anti-immigration, have no right to hold public-sector jobs even if it doesn't affect their professional conduct. The purity-test implications of that are pretty extraordinary."

    The reality is that their latest poster child has proved damaging to their cause, joining a long line of similar examples. The only genuine “witch‑hunt” has been the treatment of Dr Upton, who has faced months of targeted attacks for no reason.

    As Sodha goes on about single-sex spaces, it was also revealed at Peggie’s tribunal that she was already getting changed behind a locked door before Dr Upton started using the changing room.

    Elsewhere, the Scottish papers also seem to have toned down their coverage after coming out swinging yesterday.


    In Northern Ireland, David Thompson and Adam Kula continue their two-cis-het-man crusade against trans people and the queer community in the province. For the third day in a row, they have produced a double-page of hate, reaching for the Peggie tribunal to ensure they filled their spread.

    In case you are wondering, I’m not neglecting Welsh papers, they just never appear in my searches.

News Letter

Nesbitt told MLAs of gender clinic plans The Department of Health has pointed out that minister Mike Nesbitt repeatedly outlined in the assembly his intent to fund a new gender identity service for children. It comes amid growing concern in his own party over a decision to fund the service to the tune of £806,000 – and allow children of any age to attend. The News Letter this week revealed that five-year-olds have been referred to the clinic – something UUP MLA Doug Beattie branded “madness”. A widespread view in the party is that the decision was not in line with party policy – and the Ulster Unionist press office has declined to comment on whether it was or not. However, in response to criticism from MLAs across unionist parties, the Department of Health has pointed out that Mr Nesbitt has – on a number of occasions – made it clear to the assembly that he intended to fund gender identity services. In a written ministerial statement on December 11 2024, the UUP leader said that he was “committed to improving wider gender identity service provision for children, young people and adults in NI” – adding that would “require investment” and that a business case was being considered. He also said he would “prioritise” the services despite financial challenges. In March this year he announced his department had developed “a proposal for a new Lifespan Gender Service” which would reduce waiting times. He said his officials were “considering its contents, including funding requirement, and will shortly provide me with advice for my consideration”. It is not clear when the final decision was made, however it was announced by an LGBTQ+ lobby group last week – and subsequently confirmed by the minister. TUV MLA Timothy Gaston said the timing of the announcement – during recess – denies elected representatives an ability to probe the issue. “Decisions of this magnitude should not be made by stealth. Quite frankly, this policy flies in the face of common sense – particularly in the wake of the Cass Review, which laid bare the insufficient and low-quality evidence base underpinning treatments for gender-related distress in young children,” he said.
Left Page (Page 8) Main Headline: Call to ‘shut down gender clinics not expand them’ Byline: Adam Kula, News Letter. Content: The article covers opposition to the expansion of gender identity services, featuring criticism from gender-critical campaigners who argue such services should be shut down rather than expanded. The focus is on recent funding announcements for gender clinics and the controversy over allowing young children to be referred for transgender healthcare. A large photo of Stephanie Davies-Arai, founder of Transgender Trend, is centred under the headline. She is sitting outdoors wearing a blue cardigan and purple top, looking into the camera with greenery in the background. Sub-article bottom left: Trans doc ‘chromosomally male’, tribunal told This smaller article discusses an employment tribunal involving Sandie Peggie, a nurse, who allegedly referred to transgender medic Dr Beth Upton in discriminatory terms, including a claim about being “chromosomally male”. There is a headshot photograph of Sandie Peggie, smiling and walking outside, wearing a white jacket. Right Page (Page 9) Main Headline: ‘Neutrality’ of Scouts NI in question over Pride Byline: Adam Kula, News Letter. The article questions the stance of Scouts NI over participation in Pride events, debating whether involvement in Pride parades is compatible with the organisation’s stated neutrality. A colour photograph shows people marching in a Pride parade, holding a banner reading “NO GOING BACK” with rainbow flags visible. Bottom Right Section: A red and white advertisement for News Letter subscriptions. It includes instructions in three steps on how to subscribe using vouchers and promises up to 20% savings. There is an image of stacked newspapers and a QR code for scanning. Overall Layout: Three news articles focus on transgender issues and controversy over gender identity services, workplace discrimination, and organisational neutrality on LGBTQ+ topics. The page design features bold headlines, medium-sized photographs, and clear bylines. A subscription advert occupies the bottom right quarter of the spread.

Telegraph

  • Note this sentence - “However, it will not look at NHS gender services for children or adults, or social care services, for which there have been or are separate reviews ongoing.”

Streeting boost for LGBT healthcare Women’s groups protest after minister axed similar key review aimed at improving female care The Daily Telegraph30 Jul 2025By Michael Searles DEPUTY HEALTH EDITOR WES STREETING has ordered an LGBT+ health review despite axing a similar scheme for women. For the first time, the NHS will conduct a six-month investigation of its “unequal” treatment of LGBT+ patients. Recommendations on improving the experiences of people who consider themselves LGBT+ will be made to the Government in December, the health service said. It is likely to ignite further criticism from women, who accused the Health Secretary of “sidelining” them after he removed female health targets in annual NHS planning guidance earlier this year, while also setting up a men’s health strategy. Dame Lesley Regan, the Government’s women’s health ambassador, previously told The Telegraph there was “already a men’s health strategy – it’s called the NHS”. At the same time, charities and Royal Colleges have criticised the Health Secretary’s failure to “reset the women’s health strategy” previously set up by the Conservatives, including through the recent 10-year health plan. Ranee Thakar, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said the plan “falls short in pledging to eliminate the gender health gap that is costing women years of life and good health”. The NHS dropped a number of targets from this year’s guidance, which included removing the requirement for there to be women’s health hubs in all parts of England. The health service said the LGBT review would “build on significant evidence that LGBT+ people have worse access to healthcare, poorer experience and worse health outcomes than the general population”. It will look at the “barriers” in accessing care such as therapy, cancer screening and GP appointments. LGBT people are more likely to have mental health conditions and poor experiences of NHS services, including GPS, according to a recent patient experience survey. The review will focus on the care of people aged 16 and older but consider the experiences of children aged 13 to 15 as well. However, it will not look at NHS gender services for children or adults, or social care services, for which there have been or are separate reviews ongoing. Mr Streeting said: “The NHS is at its best when it serves everyone equally – but evidence shows this hasn’t been happening. “For too many LGBT+ people, accessing quality healthcare remains a challenge, and one often marked by discrimination, misunderstanding, and miseducation. “That’s why I’ve commissioned a comprehensive review into LGBT+ health inequalities – because every patient deserves dignity, respect, and excellent care, regardless of who they are or who they love.” Fiona Mcanena, the director of campaigns at the human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “Looking at the particular healthcare needs of population subgroups is commendable. But nothing useful can emerge if the members have little in common. LGBT+ is not a homogeneous group.”

Daily Mail

  • Have you ever even heard of International Pronoun Day?

International Pronouns Day and other woke staff events that cost trusts £1.8m Daily Mail30 Jul 2025By Harriet Line Deputy Political Editor THE NHS has allowed trusts to spend almost £2million on ‘staff networks’ that have hosted a series of ‘woke’ events over the past two years. Figures reveal the Health Service budgeted more than £1.8million for the internal staff groupings, which are usually linked to race, sexuality, gender, disability or religion. They included a Eurovision Viewing Party at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and an event on ‘Embracing Asexuality’ at The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust in Essex. Staff also attended a talk on ‘Embracing your Afro/curly hair’ at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and another on ‘International Pronouns Day’ at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust in east London. The NHS insisted many of the events are run at ‘no or very low cost’ but the Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) claimed it was ‘astonishing’ to see staff spending their time at such events instead of focusing on frontline care. More than 154 trusts responded to freedom of information requests from the TPA, showing 1,000-plus events were held by staff networks from 2022 to 2024 at 80 trusts. Tory health spokesman Stuart Andrew called the figures ‘alarming’. An NHS spokesman said: ‘Staff networks can play an important role in retaining staff and reducing absenteeism, improving care and savings costs. Many events, including ones highlighted, are run at no or very low cost.’ NHS England describes staff networks as ‘an important mechanism’ to ‘help us to shape our organisational culture to create a fairer and inclusive work environments’.

The Times

Gender drug inquiry into GP practice Sanchez Manning - Social Affairs Correspondent The NHS has begun an investigation into a GP practice that prescribed gender drugs to teenagers after “indications that patient harm may have occurred”. Gender care offered to children and young people by WellBN GP surgery in Brighton will be the focus of a five-week inquiry by NHS England and NHS Sussex. A report by the two authorities said the possible “harm” related to the age of the patients prescribed the crosssex hormones testosterone and oestrogen, which begin the physical process of changing gender, and puberty-suppressing medication. The potential harmful practices were linked to the “apparent absence” of advice from paediatric endocrinologists, who specialise in hormones, and child mental health clinicians with experience of treating complex mental health problems, the report said. Along with establishing what harms may have occurred and whether the clinic has breached the ban on prescribing puberty-blocking drugs to under- 18s, the investigation will consider whether anyone should be referred to the police or professional regulators. The inquiry follows a controversy involving the WellBN GP practice over claims that it had been prescribing feminising and masculinising hormones to 16-year-olds without parental consent. Many of the allegations made by the parents of young patients involved Sam Hall, a transgender GP practising at the surgery, who resigned from his position at the beginning of this month. NHS Sussex said on June 5 that the WellBN practice was no longer prescribing hormone medications to children and young people under 18 with gender dysphoria.

The Scotsman

Peggie names 13 colleagues she says agreed with her in changing room row The Scotsman30 Jul 2025Sarah Ward scotsman.com Nurse Sandie Peggie, seen at the Scottish Parliament, told an employment tribunal her workplace was ‘very toxic’ Sandie Peggie has named 13 colleagues who she alleged disagreed with a decision by NHS Fife to allow a transgender doctor to share a women’s changing room. Ms peggie also told an employment tribunal her workplace was “very toxic”. The nurse was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with trans medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023. She was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about “patient care”. Ms Peggie has lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment; harassment related to a protected belief; indirect discrimination; and victimisation. Yesterday, Ms Peggie was recalled to be questioned about evidence from other witnesses, and she said it made her “very sad” to name colleagues who had allegedly shared her concerns about single-sex changing rooms. Ms Peggie said: “I didn’t want anybody else to be put in the same predicament.” During re-examination by her barrister Naomi Cunningham,ms peggie named a total of 13 NHS Fife workers including receptionists and a consultant –some of whom she had named previously. She also branded her workplace “very toxic”, the tribunal heard. She admitted she had used racial slurs but said she was “brought up like that”, and said it was not a “politically correct way”. Ms Peggie said the reaction from colleagues when she had been suspended was “one of shock, they couldn’t believe what had happened tome ”, and she alleged Dr Upton had complained in a previous placement “because of an elderly patient in their 90s who had called him ‘son'”, the tribunal heard. She said when she asked for a photograph of Dr Upton, inset, using the phrase “that weirdo”, it was a picture from a night out “where he looked like a man in a dress”. Ms Peggie defended her own comments on topics such as flooding in Pakistan, and a comment about putting bacon through the letter box of a mosque, as “dark humour”. She was questioned by Jane Russell KC, representing Dr Upton and NHS Fife, on comments provided by two witnesses as well as comments from a Benidorm group chat of colleagues who went on holiday together. The nurse said: “It was never my intention to off end people outside my group of what I thought was very close friends.” Ms Peggie said she did not make a comment about putting bacon through the letterbox of a mosque, and attributed it to a paramedic, however she said: “I wouldn’t offend any Muslim people by speaking like that in front of them, it’s a comment that’s been made to one person only or between us.” It was put to her that two witnesses who attended her birthday lunch recalled her using “derogatory” terminology to talk about Dr Upton. Ms Peggie said: “The only thing I was discussing at the lunch was how I felt on the changing room, and that was what I was asking people.” The tribunal has been adjourned until September. Article Name:Peggie names 13 colleagues she says agreed with her in changing room row Publication:The Scotsman Author:Sarah Ward scotsman.com Start Page:9 End Page:9
Persecution of nurse shows SNP to be witch burners of today, writes Murdo Fraser ◆ Scottish Government should be prioritising justice for women like Sandie Peggie in the here and now, writes Murdo Fraser The Scotsman30 Jul 2025Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid-scotland and Fife While doing some research for the Scottish history podcast which I co-host, called A Thistle With Thorns, I read a newly published academic work on 17th-century Scotland. “The Scottish State and the Experience of Government, c1560-1707, Essays in Honour of Julian Goodare” brings together a collection of contributed pieces looking at the development of Scotland’s institutions of government in the early modern period. Several articles address the phenomenon of Scottish witch hunts in those times. We know that King James VI and I had something of an obsession with witches; an interest which was taken up with enthusiasm by the Kirk and the Scottish authorities. Innocent women (and the victims were usually women) were dragged to the courts for their supposed dealings with the devil, although in practice their lifestyles and beliefs might just have been out of step with societal norms of the time. We might think these episodes of witch hunting simply reflect a superstitious backward period in our nation’s history, but more recent events suggest the judgmental strain amongst Scottish authorities against lone women brave enough to challenge the orthodoxy still exists. I refer, of course, to the case of Sandie Peggie, the Fife nurse of more than 30 years unblemished service, who was suspended by NHS Fife because she had the temerity to object to sharing a changing room with a biologically male trans woman, Dr Beth Upton. I attended the employment tribunal in Dundee last week to better understand for myself the issues at stake. And what I heard that day, and what has been reported in the media, continues to astonish me. What has come out in evidence thus far indicates that, from the very start, those in positions of leadership within NHS Fife were never interested in acting in an evenhanded manner in considering Peggie’s complaints, but rather immediately took Upton’s side. There appears to have been no proper duty of care by NHS Fife towards their nurse employee, or any consideration of her rights. What’s worse, attempts were then made to smear Peggie’s character, by suggesting she was transphobic, homophobic, and even racist. The list of management failures exposed by the tribunal thus far grows ever longer. A lengthy media statement issued by NHS Fife had to be withdrawn and rewritten several times, after the first wording appeared to blame Peggie’s legal team for offensive messages being received by NHS Fife’s staff. They failed to comply with the law and may even be guilty of contempt of court. They should go now We then had an unprecedented intervention by Scotland’s Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, in relation to the health board’s failure to comply with a decision notice around responses to a Freedom of Information request. In a statement, he complained about “the petulant tone of NHS Fife’s latest statement” and went on to warn that he might have to report them to the Court of Session for contempt of court. To have a public body threatened with criminal charges in this way by another public servant is simply astonishing. In the background of all this is the fundamental question of why NHS Fife did not comply with the law in providing single-sex accommodation for staff. The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court made it clear what the law said, but the health board continues to dig a hole for itself in the stance it is taking at the tribunal. And this is after Peggie was cleared of any wrongdoing in an internal disciplinary process. NHS Fife has admitted their legal costs have exceeded £220,000, and the final total is expected to be at least double that. Unlike Peggie, whose legal costs are being funded by supporters, every penny being paid by NHS Fife comes from the pockets of you and me, the Scottish taxpayers. We are paying for the egregious mistakes being made. The positions of NHS Fife chief executive Carol Potter and the health board members are now simply untenable. They have presided over a situation where large sums of public money have been wasted in the mistreatment of someone who should have been a valued member of staff. They failed to comply with the law and may even be guilty of contempt of court. They should go now. The other astonishing aspect of this has been the pitiful silence, from Neil Gray, as Health Secretary, and John Swinney as First Minister – the individuals ultimately responsible for the actions of Scotland’s public bodies. If Potter and the Fife NHS Board do not go voluntarily, then Swinney needs to sack them. For too long, failures in Scottish public life have gone unpunished, and the Peggie case is such an extreme example that the Scottish public sector will become a laughing stock if these individuals remain in office. There is a broader issue here for the Scottish public sector, and that is the question of policy capture by extreme trans activists, which led to public bodies accepting gender self-identification in practice even though it had never been put into legislation. Whether it is in the police, the prison service, the NHS or in education, women and girls have had their spaces invaded by biological males whilst those who raised a complaint were bullied and victimised. This has all happened on Swinney’s watch. As Deputy First Minister to Nicola Sturgeon, he was more than happy to see these policies applied. Now, thankfully, this case has exposed the weakness of his position, and his inexcusable failure to put things right. Never mind the Scottish Government making apologies for the witches persecuted 400 years ago, it should be starting today by ensuring brave women like Sandie Peggie get the justice they deserve. Article Name:Persecution of nurse shows SNP to be witch burners of today, writes Murdo Fraser Publication:The Scotsman Author:Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid-scotland and Fife Start Page:22 End Page:22

The National

A two-page newspaper spread from The National dated Wednesday, 30 July 2025. The main headline on the left page reads: “Labour silent on support for nurse after racist jokes made public”. Beneath the headline, the byline credits Xander Elliards. The article discusses Scottish Labour politicians remaining silent about their previous support for NHS nurse Sandie Peggie after her racist and transphobic remarks became public during an employment tribunal involving a trans doctor, Beth Upton. The article mentions offensive jokes and comments about Pakistani people and Muslims attributed to Peggie. It notes that Anas Sarwar, Jackie Baillie and others have not responded to requests for comment. There is a quote from Green MSP Patrick Harvie criticising their silence. A prominent photograph features three women standing together, identified in the caption as Labour’s Melanie Ward MP, Claire Baker MSP, and Sandie Peggie. Another small circular image shows Patrick Harvie. On the right-hand page, a second article by Jane McLeod is headlined “Peggie denies mosque comment”. This reports Peggie’s testimony denying that she said Muslim staff should use a mosque for changing, calling the alleged comment “dark humour”. The article recounts her explanation during a tribunal, including her claims of being misinterpreted, her denial of transphobia, and her assertion she did not hold animosity towards trans or Muslim people. She claims that remarks about sharing changing rooms with a trans doctor were taken out of context. The right-hand page also contains a travel insurance advertisement for Staysure, featuring images of European destinations, including a coastal town and the Taj Mahal, with text promoting pre-existing medical condition cover and unlimited emergency medical expenses. The bottom of the left page has a smaller article by Hamish Morrison titled “Sultana reveals her preferred name for new political party with Corbyn” with a small portrait photo of Zarah Sultana.
Labour silent on support for nurse after racist jokes made public The National (Scotland)30 Jul 2025EXCLUSIVE BY XANDER ELLIARDS BY JANE MCLEOD SCOTTISH Labour have fallen completely silent on their support for NHS nurse Sandie Peggie after a series of her racist and transphobic remarks became public. Anas Sarwar, his deputy Jackie Baillie, and other parliamentarians in the group had given their full backing to Peggie amid an ongoing employment tribunal, sparked after the nurse was suspended following allegations of bullying and harassment against trans doctor Beth Upton. Peggie had taken issue with sharing a changing room with Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023 – and later lodged a complaint against NHS Fife citing harassment related to a protected belief. On Monday, the tribunal heard that Peggie had made a series of transphobic and racist remarks, including referring to Upton as “weirdo”, “freak” and “it”. It further heard that she had shared a series of racist jokes about Pakistani people and Muslims to a group chat, including mocking the victims of floods that killed thousands in 2022, saying the country would look like a “bowl of Coco Pops”. Other so-called jokes shared by Peggie to a group chat said “I bet little Mohammed isn’t having to walk 3 miles to fetch water now” and “the Queen … wanted to mention that Britain has plenty of spare P **** ”. She was also accused of using the racist slur “Ch***”. Scottish Labour politicians including MP Melanie Ward, MSP Claire Baker, and MSP Carol Mochan, had all spoken out in support of Peggie in the seven days before her racist comments were made public. All three failed to respond when approached about Monday’s tribunal hearing. Sarwar and Baillie had told the Holyrood Sources podcast earlier in 2025 that they supported Peggie in the tribunal – at the same time as they U-turned on support for gender reform. Neither their Scottish Labour nor UK Labour responded to repeated requests for comment on Monday’s tribunal hearing. The Scottish Conservatives, who have equally been vocal in their support of Peggie, also failed to respond when approached. Jess O’Thomson, the community outreach lead for Good Law Project, said: “The comments alleged to have been made by Ms Peggie are plainly obscene. “These Labour politicians should consider how they have ended up championing the side of bigotry against vulnerable minorities. It is surely a shameful position they have found themselves in.” Edinburgh-based trans rights activist Tristan Grayford said that Scottish Labour politicians appeared to believe that “being transphobic is more important than standing up to racism”. “I think what we’re seeing from Scottish Labour politicians is atrocious behaviour,” he said. “They’re basically attacking our NHS for daring to have any kind of limits on whether or not someone executive, said: “Obviously, Sex Matters in no way defends the sentiments regarding the victims of the Pakistan floods, or remarks about a mosque attributed to her by a witness. “The content of private group messages, however unpleasant, do not change the facts at the heart of this case: that a female nurse is seeking justice after suffering discrimination and harassment because she didn’t want to share changing facilities with a male doctor.” SANDIE Peggie yesterday named 13 colleagues who she alleged disagreed with a decision by NHS Fife to allow a transgender doctor to share a women’s changing room. Peggie also told an employment tribunal her workplace was “very toxic”. The nurse was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with trans medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023. She was placed on special leave after Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about “patient care”. Peggie has lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment; harassment related to a protected belief; indirect discrimination; and victimisation. Yesterday, Peggie was recalled to be questioned about evidence from other witnesses. She said it made her “very sad” to name colleagues who had allegedly shared her concerns about single-sex changing rooms. “I didn’t want anybody else to be put in the same predicament,” she said. During re-examination by her barrister Naomi Cunningham, Peggie named 13 NHS Fife workers including receptionists and a consultant – some of whom she had named previously. She also branded her workplace “very toxic”, the tribunal heard. She admitted she had used racial slurs but said she was “brought up like that”. She claimed it did not cause offence within the community where she lived, including neighbours from Chinese and Pakistani backgrounds. Peggie said the reaction from colleagues when she had been suspended was “one of shock”. She alleged Upton had complained in a previous placement “because of an elderly patient in their 90s who had called him ‘son’”, the tribunal heard. She said when she asked for a photograph of Upton using the phrase “that weirdo”, it was a picture from a night out “where he looked like a man in a dress”. Peggie defended her own comments on topics such as flooding in Pakistan, and a comment about putting bacon through the letterbox of a mosque, as “dark humour”. She was questioned by Jane Russell KC, representing Upton and NHS Fife, on comments provided by two witnesses as well as comments from a Benidorm group chat of colleagues who went on holiday together. The nurse said: “It was never my intention to offend people outside my group of what I thought was very close friends.” Peggie said she did not make a comment about putting bacon through the letterbox of a mosque, and attributed it to a paramedic. However she said: “I wouldn’t offend any Muslim people by speaking like that in front of them, it’s a comment that’s been made to one person only or between us.” She said she had “a fear of it being built” because she was “frightened of Sharia law”, and had an objection to “illegal immigrants”, the tribunal heard. It was put to Peggie that two witnesses who attended her birthday lunch recalled her using “derogatory” terminology to talk about Dr Upton. Peggie said: “The only thing I was discussing at the lunch was how I felt on the changing room, and that was what I was asking people.” The lawyer said a colleague withdrew from the Benidorm group chat, saying Peggie was “relentless in her nastiness”, and that Upton “does not deserve the hate campaign that is obviously being waged not only by Sandie but other staff as well”, the tribunal heard. Russell said: “You were waging a hate campaign against Dr Upton, weren’t you?” Peggie replied: “No.” Asked if she believed trans people were “pretending” to access single-sex spaces, Peggie said: “I don’t have any bad feelings about trans people, I just don’t believe they should be in the women’s changing room. I still believe a trans woman is a man.” Another message was put to Peggie, where she said “those policies are a ... minefield, been looking at menstrual privacy stuff as well”, the tribunal heard. Russell said: “Was this detail about the menstrual flood a cover to disguise the fact the only reason you went to the changing room was to confront Upton?” Peggie said: “No.” The tribunal was adjourned until September. Article Name:Labour silent on support for nurse after racist jokes made public Publication:The National (Scotland) Author:EXCLUSIVE BY XANDER ELLIARDS BY JANE MCLEOD Start Page:10 End Page:10

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: Scottish papers step up]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-scottish-papershttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-scottish-papersTue, 29 Jul 2025 12:00:44 GMTNEWS

Sussex Police ‘failed’ transgender teen who took his own life, court hears [MSN]

  • The mother and stepfather of transgender teenager Jason Pulman, who took his own life in April 2022, are suing Sussex Police for alleged human rights breaches. Jason, 15, was found dead in Hampden Park, Eastbourne, after going missing. An inquest last year concluded his emotional and mental health needs were “inadequately assessed and provided for” and that police “responded inadequately” to his disappearance.

    His parents, Emily and Mark Pulman, say the force’s 10-hour delay before visiting their home potentially contributed to his death. They argue the handling of Jason’s case failed to protect his rights and welfare.

Nurse accused of anti-trans and Islamophobic comments during tribunal [Yahoo]

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  • A tribunal heard claims that NHS nurse Sandie Peggie made Islamophobic and anti-trans remarks, including allegedly saying she “wanted to post bacon through the letterbox of a mosque”, and allegedly mocking Pakistan flood victims in Facebook post, amongst other things. Witness Fiona Wishart said Peggie allegedly made “derogatory remarks” about Dr Beth Upton, including terms reportedly used by others such as “weirdo”, “freak” and “it”. Wishart added Peggie allegedly criticised immigrants, claiming they “need to go back to their own country” and “come over here to steal our jobs”. Peggie has been recalled today to give evidence after this testimony. You can read more about this in THE PAPERS section below.

POLITICS

Scottish government responds to EHRC code of practice consultation [Holyrood]

  • On 25 July, 2025, the Scottish Government released their response regarding the EHRC Code of Practice, which is due to be updated over the summer in light of the farcical Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case.

    In summary, the Scottish Government criticises the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft Code of Practice for focusing on justifying the exclusion of trans people rather than looking for ways to be inclusive, but willingly uses the language of those who hate trans people, which renders the entire thing useless. You cannot fight discrimination while using the language of those wanting to do the discriminating.

    They accept the Supreme Court ruling defining “woman” as “biological woman”, while ministers warned against marginalising trans people, which is exactly what is already happening. Their response urges the EHRC to include guidance on inclusive approaches, to balance equality law with human rights obligations, and clarify when a Gender Recognition Certificate changes legal sex. It also calls for the consideration of intersex people.

    You can read the letter in full here.

Project 2025 creator to challenge Lindsey Graham for Senate seat [NBC News]

  • Paul Dans, architect of the far-right Project 2025, will run in the 2026 South Carolina Republican primary against long-serving Senator Lindsey Graham, according to NBC News. Dans is also a former director of the Heritage Foundation.

    Further reading: Still wondering why so many Labour policies sound like they’ve come straight from Donald Trump? This should help - Blue Labour on MAGA Square: Maurice Glasman’s Journey to Trumpism [Byline Times]

MEDIA

Independent pull articles on Peggie racism allegations

  • The Independent initially published a story covering the allegations made at the Sandie Peggie tribunal detailed above but, for reasons that have not been explained at the time of writing, removed it, sending the article link to the home page. A few hours later, however, they had another article online detailing more alleged racist and transphobic comments by Peggie. By the time I had woken up this morning, they had also removed that one. The second article has been archived here. Maya Forstater, of Sex Matters, says that Peggie is being ‘smeared’ after ‘ill-judged’ comments.

SPORT

Anti-trans protesters removed after targeting trans darts player [Pink News]

  • Three anti-trans protesters were ejected from the Women’s World Matchplay after attempting to disrupt Noa-Lynn van Leuven, the first trans woman to qualify for the Professional Darts Corporation World Championship.

    One wore a “Save Women’s Sport” T-shirt (but probably couldn’t name another female darts player) and tried to throw objects onto the stage. Van Leuven, who has faced significant abuse, said: “I love this game too much, why would I let anyone else ruin my passion for darts? I just want to play darts.”

    The Dutch player, who has spoken openly about her mental health struggles linked to the contrived backlash, vowed to keep competing.

Buttigieg backs trans bans and agrees ‘concerned’ parents have a point [Advocate]

  • In what he probably hoped would be the headline, Pete Buttigieg has rejected blanket bans on trans athletes, arguing that decisions should be made by local sports leagues and school boards rather than politicians. How that’s meant to be better is not clear. Speaking to NPR, he said the approach “starts with compassion… for transgender people, compassion for families… and also empathy for people who are not sure what all of this means for them.” Yes, won’t someone think of the ignorant bigots!

    Advocate, who call this “one of the most carefully worded responses yet to the debate over transgender youth participation in sports”, also reported that “Asked whether a parent concerned about their child facing a trans kid in girls’ sports “has a case,” Buttigieg said, “Sure.””

    With friends like these…

AROUND THE WORLD

Australia - Equality Australia backs trans inclusion in legal fight over female-only spaces [The Australian]

  • Equality Australia has joined Roxanne Tickle’s landmark Federal Court case challenging the exclusion of trans women from female-only spaces. The case, against Giggle app founder Sall Grover, stems from Grover’s rejection of Tickle from a female-only networking platform, which was found to be unlawful last year. Equality Australia’s application will be decided when the appeal hearing begins on August 4.

USA - Boston Children’s stands firm on trans youth care despite threats [LGBTQ Nation]

  • Boston Children’s Hospital has vowed it will not be bullied into abandoning its care for trans youth, despite political pressure, bomb threats and hate campaigns.

USA - Kaiser, Yale and others backtrack on youth trans care under political pressure [Erin in the Morning]

  • A growing number of US hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente, Yale Medicine, and Connecticut Children’s, have suspended care for trans youth under 19, despite state laws protecting access. Kaiser’s reversal came just one day after 750 parents praised its care in an open letter.

CHINA - Hong Kong court offers partial win for trans bathroom rights [LGBTQ Nation]

  • A Hong Kong court has struck down parts of a law criminalising trans people for using bathrooms matching their gender. The ruling, which suspended changes for 12 months to allow a government review, follows previous progress on gender marker rules. However, trans people fear officials may again over-promise, as past reforms still forced invasive medical procedures on people seeking ID changes.

CUBA - Cuba drops surgery requirement for gender marker changes [LGBTQ Nation]

  • Cuba will now allow trans people to change gender markers on their official ID without undergoing genital surgery. While gender care has been state-funded since 2008, access has long been hampered by medicine shortages and staffing issues worsened by US sanctions and domestic budget cuts. Many trans Cubans have been forced to self-medicate due to treatment delays. Campaigners welcomed the legal reform as a long-overdue step for trans rights but warned that practical barriers to accessing hormones and surgeries remain.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

  • “The NHS has launched its first review of health inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ people, including access to mental health care, cancer screening and primary care services. The review will last six months.” [Politico]. It will be led by Dr Michael Brady, who has pronouns in his Twitter bio.

TODAY’S PAPERS

News Letter

  • Following up on their front page and double-page of hate yesterday, the News Letter are back with another front page and a double-page of hate, including nonsense from Kathleen Stock who, as usual, doesn’t have a clue what she is talking about. They do, at least, refer to her as a ‘critic of the transgender movement’ twice in the first three paragraphs. They also imply she was fired from her university job when we all know she quit after receiving the support of her employer. Basic shit.

    More seriously, however, the News Letter gleefully print harmful and false claims from the DUP’s Diane Dodds. Dodds said, “When children as young as five are caught up in this, it is not ‘support’, it is ideological experimentation on children by the state.” There is nothing ‘experimental’ about trans healthcare, beyond what these people would like to see us subjected to.

Front page of the News Letter dated Tuesday, 29 July 2025. The masthead reads “News Letter: The Pride of Northern Ireland, since 1737.” Main headline in bold black text: “Nesbitt trans plan puts UUP in turmoil” with subheading “Referral of young children madness: Ex-leader.” An article by David Thompson sits below the headline. The central image shows Health Minister Mike Nesbitt in a light blue suit with glasses, looking downward with a thoughtful or concerned expression. Other articles include: “GPs to cut back some work in dispute over cash” on the right-hand side, and a banner for “Fermanagh horror shooting: Husband and dad prime suspect” at the top left. There is also a colourful sports banner across the top featuring “LEGENDS COUP FOR BROWNE” with motorcycle imagery and another titled “Special Keep ‘Er Lit has all the action from the Armoy Races.” The bottom strip of the page is an advert for jobstoday.co.uk reading “What do you want to do tomorrow?” with images of people using laptops.
Two-page newspaper spread from the News Letter dated Tuesday, 29 July 2025, focusing on political controversy over Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt’s trans healthcare funding plans. Left Page: Main headline: “UUP opposition to Nesbitt trans services plan grows.” Main article by David Thompson outlines political backlash from Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) members regarding £800,000 funding for a gender identity service. Large central image shows Mike Nesbitt outdoors in a grey suit, holding documents and a red folder while speaking to reporters. Sub-article at the bottom: “Growing questions over leadership” discussing doubts about UUP leadership stability. Right Page: Top article: “‘Experimentation on children’ condemned.” Discusses criticism of transgender healthcare for youth, featuring a photo of Carla Lockhart MP in a circular inset. Mid-page photo shows protesters holding “Trans Rights Now” placards, standing together outside, one protester in a patterned skirt and boots engaging with another person. Caption: “Protesters speaking of Patrick Harvie blocks at the Oxford Union in 2023.” Article headline beneath photo: “Trans patients aged five ‘down to parents’.” Focuses on parental roles and medical consent for young transgender patients. Bottom right advert: “Unlock tax-free cash from your home” by Age Partnership, featuring a smiling elderly woman with glasses using a smartphone.

Telegraph

  • The Telegraph have one article attacking trans people today. Sort of. On the surface, it looks like them gleefully misgendering a trans person, but the Daily Mail report the same story as, “A convicted Algerian criminal has been allowed to stay in Britain after claiming he is a transvestite and would be at risk if he was deported.” The Times’ report, however, was confusing, as you can see below. so I’m really none the wiser. I have not included the Mail’s article as it makes no reference to the person being transgender.

Algerian criminal wins right to stay in UK because he was ‘ridiculed for being trans’ The Daily Telegraph29 Jul 2025By Charles Hymas Home affairs Editor AN ALGERIAN criminal has won the right to stay in Britain after claiming he would face ridicule and abuse in his home country for being transgender. The 27-year-old had been previously jailed for robbery and committed multiple offences, including burglary, theft and battery, since being granted refugee status in 2013. Arguing against his deportation, the repeat offender, identified only as MS, claimed he would be targeted because of his sexuality, described to a court as “gay, transvestite and/or transgender”. A judge agreed, upholding his appeal against the Home Office’s revocation of his refugee status. Upper Tribunal Judge Christopher Hanson said: “Were MS to return to Algeria and be open about his sexuality, he would be at risk of mockery, harassment, discrimination and potential harm from non-state actors. Were he to wear women’s clothes and makeup, he would certainly draw negative attention to himself, and would likely be subjected to ridicule, hostility and possible harm. “While there are some transvestites and transgender individuals in Algeria... they have suffered abuse and harm.” The case comes as Yvette Cooper, the ‘Were he to wear women’s makeup, he would certainly draw negative attention to himself’ Home Secretary, draws up new laws to restrict the rights of foreign criminals and illegal migrants to use human rights laws to avoid deportation. She is also tightening the rules to allow the Government to reject asylum applications of sex offenders. Since his arrival in Britain 12 years ago, MS has been convicted of numerous crimes, including four convictions for offences including burglary and theft; attempted burglary with intent to steal; using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence; and theft. A deportation order was made in August 2022. The Home Office asserted in July 2023 that the situation in Algeria had changed and MS would no longer be an “individual who would face treatment amounting to persecution”. But a “country expert” told the tribunal that while “homosexuality is not illegal in Algeria, engaging in homosexual acts is a punishable offence”, and those who do not hide their sexuality were at risk of “physical violence”. Judge Hanson found the lower court had made a legal error because it did not consider the “protected characteristics” for which the asylum seeker had been “recognised as a refugee”.

Times

Algerian thief can stay in UK because he wears women’s clothes Jonathan Ames - Legal Editor A judge has allowed an Algerian thief to avoid deportation after hearing that he faced abuse in north Africa because he wears women’s clothes and make-up. The unnamed 27-year-old has been jailed in the UK for robbery and has committed other offences including burglary, theft and battery since being granted refugee status in 2013. Identified only as MS, the man argued at an appeal hearing that he would be targeted in Algeria because of his sexuality, which was described as “gay, transvestite and/or transgender”. Home Office officials issued the man with a deportation order three years ago. Lawyers for the department told a tribunal in 2023 that the situation in Algeria had evolved, meaning MS would no longer “face treatment amounting to persecution” in the country. The judge in the upper tribunal in Birmingham, Christopher Hanson, noted there were “some transvestites and transgender individuals in Algeria” – but they had “suffered abuse and harm”. Hanson upheld MS’s appeal against deportation, saying if he were “to return to Algeria and be open about his sexuality, he would be at risk of mockery, harassment, discrimination and potential harm from non-state actors”. He added that Algerian society would be unlikely to accept him wearing women’s clothes or being transgender. The judge said the man had also made “entirely plausible” submissions about “his father’s threats to kill him on account of his behaviour”. Since arriving in the UK 12 years ago, MS has committed a string of offences. Whitehall officials issued him a warning in 2015 after he received convictions including burglary and theft, and using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence. But he was convicted of a further eight offences between 2016 and 2018, and others in the following years. MS received several jail sentences, one of which was for more than four years. A deportation order was served in 2022, but at a hearing a “country expert” said he would be at risk in Algeria because of his sexuality. The upper tribunal judge has now ruled he can maintain his refugee status.

The Scotsman

The front page of The Scotsman dated Tuesday 29 July 2025, price £2.60. The main masthead reads “SCOTLAND’S NATIONAL NEWSPAPER” with the website address www.scotsman.com. A large photograph shows US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer arriving by helicopter at Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeenshire, with a marine saluting them. The main story teaser in the right-hand column reads: “Peggie ‘called trans doctor a weirdo’ claim” by Sarah Ward, summarising the tribunal case involving nurse Sandie Peggie and transgender doctor Beth Upton. A yellow-highlighted box notes “Full story, page 9”.
Peggie ‘called trans doctor a weirdo’ claim The Scotsman29 Jul 2025Sarah Ward The nurse at the centre of a tribunal involving a transgender doctor allegedly referred to the doctor as “it” and “that weirdo”, according to a former friend of the nurse. Lindsey Nicoll, a nurse practitioner, also alleged to the hearing that Sandie Peggie would use racial slurs. She is set to be recalled to give evidence today. A former friend of nurse Sandie Peggie has alleged that she referred to a transgender doctor as “it” and “asked for pictures of that weirdo”, a tribunal heard. Ms Peggie was suspended after she complained about having to share a changingroom with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023. She was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about “patient care”. Ms Peggie has lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment; harassment related to a protected belief; indirect discrimination; and victimisation. Lindsey Nicoll, an emergency nurse practitioner who became friends with Ms Peggie in 2010 and began holidaying with her in 2017, said the veteran nurse would use racial slurs and posted jokes about floods in Pakistan which killed 3,000 people into a “Benidorm group chat” in 2017. Ms Nicoll said that in 2024 the pair were at an airport when Ms Peggie allegedly saw a group of women wearing burkas and appeared “disgusted”, the tribunal heard. The witness said that after the trip she removed herself from the group chat and explained she “wouldn’t be spending time in Sandie’s company”. Ms Nicoll alleged that at a lunch on September 4 2023, Ms Peggie referred to Dr Upton as “it” and “weirdo”, the tribunal heard. Ms Nicoll said: “I can distinctively remember her saying ‘weirdo’ at lunch.” She said that in February 2024 her ex-friend had posted in a group chat “well it appears official, Sandie Peggie vs Beth Upton”, and that Ms Peggie had inadvertently messaged someone in error “asking for photos of that weirdo”, the tribunal heard. Asked about a message sent by Ms Peggie which read “can you post a picture of that weirdo”, Ms Nicoll said: “I obviously didn’t realise the weirdo she was referring to was Beth.” She said that Dr Upton was mentioned at the lunch “immediately”, the tribunal heard. The witness said: “She started talking about a doctor who had been working in A&E about three or four weeks, she was really angry about the doctor being there, referring to the doctor as ‘weirdo’; ‘it’; ‘him’. “I remember someone saying ‘why can’t you live and let live?’ She seemed full of anger and hate about this doctor who she had only just met.” During cross-examination by Ms Peggie’s lawyer, Naomi Cunningham, the witness agreed she was aware of allegations Dr Upton had “caused chaos” in a previous job including allegedly complaining about being misgendered by dementia patients and admitted patient confidentiality could have been breached in the group chat, the tribunal heard. I didn’t realise the weirdo she was referring to was Beth Ms Cunningham said: “Do you agree your regulator places some stress on confidentiality, so sharing patient details, chatting about patients by name on a chat like this would be breach of regulations?” Ms Nicoll said: “Yes, it would.” The witness provided 10 jokes shared by Ms Peggie regarding flooding in Pakistan, branding them “racist”, but admitted posting a laughing emoji when Ms Peggie posted saying “Sorry folks if that makes me racist”, the tribunal heard. Ms Nicoll said she may have “enabled” Ms Peggie and that it was “likely” she had behaved as alleged towards Dr Upton, describing her as “rude” and “bigoted”, the court heard. Other users of the group chat posted jokes including about the adult baby diaper loving community, the tribunal heard. Ms Cunningham said: “Do you disagree you were the only member of the Benidorm group who disagrees with Sandie’s stance?” The witness said: “My reason for feeling the way I do is to do with Sandie’s views and how she likely behaved to the doctor. I accept everyone has got different views about being in a changing room with a transgender person.” The witness denied she was “hostile” to Ms Peggie but added: “It’s something I certainly felt strongly about and felt I needed to do.” Messages written by Ms Nicoll were shared, including: “She’s a f **** who is going to end up with a massive payout, I hope she’s struck off”, and “if anyone was to ask for statement about Sandie’s character I would do it. She should be struck off, I hope she is”, the tribunal heard. Ms Cunningham said she was “attempting to end Sandie’s career”, but the witness said she felt there was no place for “bigotry” in nursing. The witness said: “I’ve watched her stare in disgust at people walking through an airport in burkas, I’ve heard her calling a transgender woman a weirdo, and I don’t think it’s acceptable, no.” She added: “I think it’s important for people to understand Sandie’s character, the bigoted racism that Sandie is all for. I don’t think there is a place for it in nursing. I think we should be showing people compassion and empathy, and respect, and I don’t think Sandie does that.” Ms Peggie will be recalled at the hearing today . Article Name:Peggie ‘called trans doctor a weirdo’ claim Publication:The Scotsman Author:Sarah Ward Start Page:9 End Page:9

The Herald

Front page of The Herald newspaper dated Tuesday, July 29, 2025, price £2.60, subscription from £2.08. The main headline in large black serif font reads: “Starmer stays straight-faced as President gets talkative”. A subhead beneath in smaller font says: “PM and his wife stick to script (mostly) as press pack finds lots to chew on”. A byline underneath attributes the article to Andrew Learmonth, Political Editor, reporting from Trump Turnberry. Below the headline is a large colour photograph of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer smiling and gesturing while walking alongside US President Donald Trump, who is also smiling and gesturing with his right hand raised. Both are wearing suits and ties. On the right-hand side of the page is a smaller boxed headline reading: “Peggie accused of calling trans doctor a ‘weirdo’” by Rebecca McCurdy. The text beneath summarises that a former friend of nurse Sandie Peggie has alleged she referred to a transgender doctor as “it” and a “weirdo”, triggering a tribunal hearing. Peggie has been placed on special leave by NHS Fife after allegations of bullying, harassment, and patient safety concerns at Victoria Hospital. The masthead at the top features The Herald logo with a heraldic crest of a unicorn holding a shield bearing a saltire. There is also a red banner across the page reading: “Donald Trump in Scotland”.
Nurse Peggie recalled after claim she called trans doctor a ‘weirdo’ The Herald29 Jul 2025Rebecca Mccurdy Political Correspondent Picture: Iain Masterton Sandie Peggie arrives at the tribunal with solicitor Margaret Gribbon SANDIE Peggie will give fresh evidence in her employment tribunal against NHS Fife after she was accused of racism and describing a transgender medic as a “weirdo”. The nurse is suing her employer after she complained about having to share a changing room with Dr Beth Upton, a trans woman, at Victoria Hospital on Christmas Eve 2023. Ms Peggie was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying, harassment and patient safety concerns. The court at the Dundee Tribunal Hearing Centre yesterday heard from two nursing colleagues of Ms Peggie, who both overheard “derogatory” comments. Lindsey Nicoll, an emergency nurse practitioner at the hospital, went on numerous holidays with Ms Peggie between 2017 and 2024, the tribunal heard. However, she told the tribunal that she was uncomfortable with some of the remarks made by Ms Peggie in a “Benidorm group chat”. In 2024, Ms Nicoll said the pair were at an airport when Ms Peggie appeared “disgusted” by a group of women wearing burkas. Two years earlier, Ms Peggie had shared 10 jokes into the group chat about the floods in Pakistan, concluding the post by stating “sorry if that makes me racist”. After that trip, Ms Nicoll said she left the group chat and told friends she “wouldn’t be spending time in Sandie’s company”. She also told the tribunal that at a lunch in September 2023, Ms Peggie had mentioned Dr Upton. Ms Nicoll explained: “She started talking about a doctor who had been working in A&E about three or four weeks. She was really angry about the doctor being there, referring to the doctor as ‘weirdo’, ‘it’ and ‘him’. “I remember someone saying, ‘Why can’t you live and let live?’ She seemed full of anger and hate about this doctor she had only just met.” However, during cross-examination by Naomi Cunningham, who represents Ms Peggie, the witness said she was aware of messages in the group chat that alluded to Dr Upton causing “chaos” in a previous job after it is alleged the medic complained about being misgendered by a dementia patient. Ms Cunningham also referenced a post from Ms Nicoll in the group chat, where she shared details of a patient’s name and their complaint. “Do you agree your regulator places some stress on confidentiality, so sharing patient details, chatting about patients by name on a chat like this would be a breach of regulations?” Ms Nicoll agreed that it would and I think it’s important for people to understand Sandie’s character said she found her remarks “disappointing”. The witness also admitted that she may have “enabled” Ms Peggie’s views by putting a laughing emoji to her comment that she may be “racist” for sharing jokes about Pakistan. Ms Nicoll was also forced to deny she was attempting to destroy Ms Peggie’s career by coming forward with these allegations. “You thoroughly dislike Sandie Peggie, don’t you?” Ms Cunningham asked. But Ms Nicoll replied: “I am actually really sad about the whole situation. We’re clearly very different people.” In cross-examination, Ms Cunningham accused Ms Nicoll of being “hostile” and having it in for her former friend. The tribunal heard that Ms Nicoll had messaged a friend about disliking Ms Peggie’s conduct and said that she hoped the nurse was “struck off” from the Nursing and Midwifery Council register. Ms Cunningham asked: “This is an attempt to end Sandie’s career, isn’t it?” Ms Nicoll replied that this was not the case and said she felt there was no place for “bigotry” in nursing. She said: “I’ve watched her stare in disgust at people walking through an airport in burkas. I’ve heard her calling a transgender woman a weirdo and I don’t think it’s acceptable, no. “I think it’s important for people to understand Sandie’s character, the bigoted racism that Sandie is all for. I don’t think there is a place for it in nursing. I think we should be showing people compassion and empathy and respect and I don’t think Sandie does that.” An earlier witness, Fiona Wishart, who also works as an emergency nurse practitioner, told the tribunal she was “offended” by comments made by Ms Peggie in relation to a mosque being built in Kirkcaldy. The tribunal heard that Ms Peggie allegedly said she had “a good mind to post bacon through the letter box” of the mosque. Ms Peggie has been recalled and will give evidence in the tribunal this afternoon. Her barrister, Ms Cunningham, appealed to employment judge Sandy Kemp to allow this, prior to the evidence from Ms Peggie’s colleagues, to be heard in order to give the nurse the opportunity to discuss it. Two additional witnesses have been called by the claimants team. One is Sandra Ross, from the Benidorm group chat, while the other is Emma Ward, an administrator for the organisation Sex Matters. Ms Ward is expected to tell the tribunal that the caller came forward to report concerns about using a changing room with a transgender person present. The tribunal continues. Article Name:Nurse Peggie recalled after claim she called trans doctor a ‘weirdo’ Publication:The Herald Author:Rebecca Mccurdy Political Correspondent Start Page:4 End Page:4
Key points as Sandie Peggie’s character condemned by witness in tribunal Rebecca McCurdy THE Sandie Peggie employment tribunal against NHS Fife continued yesterday with evidence from two nurses condemning the character of their colleague. Emergency nursing practitioners Fiona Wishart and Lindsey Nicoll were called by NHS Fife’s lawyer Jane Russell KC to give evidence. Here are the key points: Peggie is said to have referred to Upton as “it” First up, we heard from Ms Wishart, a nurse with NHS Fife for 41 years. She was in the changing room on Christmas Eve with both Ms Peggie and Dr Upton but left before the dispute. However, she said that “derogatory” comments were made about Dr Upton. The September 2023 lunch resulted in Ms Peggie referring to the medic as a “weirdo,” and a “freak”. It’s important to note that Ms Wishart said that she did not directly hear these remarks, and it was instead relayed to her by a colleague. ‘Racist and homophobic’ claims At that September 2023 lunch, it is also alleged that Ms Peggie made reference to a mosque being built in Kirkcaldy. Ms Wishart alleges that she heard Ms Peggie say she “had a good mind to post bacon through the letter box”. Further allegations accusing Ms Peggie of racism emerged in Ms Nicoll’s evidence. Here, the “Benidorm group chat” becomes a key part of the tribunal. It is alleged that Ms Peggie shared 10 posts in this group chat with racist jokes about the floods in Pakistan in 2022, where 1,737 people died. “Clearly she is a racist,” said Ms Nicoll, who had been going on group holidays with Ms Peggie between 2017 and 2024. The homophobic allegations were also made by Ms Nicoll, who accused Ms Peggie of being “devastated” that her daughter was gay. She asked Ms Nicoll, who revealed she has a gay son, how she “coped”. “I just feel she is possibly homophobic in the way she was devastated,” she said. Attempt to end Sandie Peggie’s career? Ms Nicoll told the tribunal she had not set out to “end Sandie’s career” by giving evidence against her character. Ms Nicoll categorically denied she had it in for Ms Peggie and said she found the prospect of giving evidence to a tribunal a “complete nightmare”. The tribunal heard that the witness sent messages to a colleague criticising Ms Peggie and expressing a willingness to give evidence against her. She also argued that Ms Peggie should be “struck off” from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register. Ms Cunningham said: “This is an attempt to end Sandie’s career, isn’t it?”. The barrister claimed the NHS Fife health board were looking for someone to do a “hatchet job” of Ms Peggie’s character, with Ms Nicoll being described as “all too willing”. Peggie recalled Sandie Peggie has been recalled to give additional evidence to the tribunal following some of the allegations made against her. The nurse will give evidence today.

The Courier & Advertiser

Front page of The Courier (File edition), dated Tuesday, 29 July 2025, issue No. 53,653, price £2.20. Main headline: “Claim nurse made racist jokes about floods in Pakistan”, with the subheading: “Tribunal: Sandie Peggie accused of offensive remarks”. The main article by Justin Bowie and Alasdair Clark details allegations of Peggie mocking victims of catastrophic floods in Pakistan via Facebook posts. Accompanying image shows Sandie Peggie in a white coat and black top, walking outside, smiling at the camera. Other cover stories include “Trump tells of ‘great love for Scotland’ ahead of PM talks”, “Fife singer Roan and Sheeran to top iTunes chart”, “Call for public to join rally against fire service cuts”, “Success for Burns club Page 6”, and “Fife terror suspect: ‘I’ll make 9/11 look like Teletubbies’ Page 12”.
A two-page spread from The Courier & Advertiser dated Tuesday, 29 July 2025. The headline reads: “Nurse in trans row accused of racist postings”. The left-hand article by Justin Bowie and Alasdair Clark reports allegations against Sandie Peggie, an NHS Fife nurse, accused of mocking victims of deadly floods in Pakistan in Facebook posts, and of making derogatory comments about transgender doctor Beth Upton. Accompanying images include: A large central photo of Sandie Peggie, smiling and wearing a white coat, carrying a handbag. A smaller inset photo of emergency nurse practitioner Lindsey Nicoll wearing glasses and a green jacket. An inset of Maya Forstater, known for gender-critical activism, smiling with curly hair and a pink scarf. The right-hand page carries the headline “Peggie recalled to tribunal as charity backing her breaks silence on claims she made offensive posts”. The layout includes quotes from witnesses about Peggie’s alleged offensive remarks, including calling Dr Upton a “weirdo” and “freak”.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: Telegraph attack Trans Pride]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-telegraph-attackhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-telegraph-attackMon, 28 Jul 2025 12:24:26 GMT28 July 2025

Hello! Having spent the past few months trying to work out the best way to continue with the Trans Agenda after burning out and needing a break, I’ve settled on going back to daily, five days a week. Doing it once a week was a massive undertaking for my ADHD brain, and it also meant there was a lot for you to wade through, with some of it already be ‘out of date’ by the time it reached your inboxes.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Just to be helpful, those five days won’t be the same every week, but will co-ordinate with my main job, which usually sees me rotate having Tuesday/Wednesday and Thursday/Friday off. This week, it’s Thursday/Friday, so the Trans Agenda, news and clips allowing, will be out Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. If there’s no edition, I’m either taking the day off or there is nothing to report, which does occasionally happen.

NEWS

UK & IRELAND

Media largely ignore largest Trans Pride event in history [Guardian]

  • As is their want, the majority of the British printed press ignored 100,000 people marching for trans rights in London at the weekend in what is being described as the largest event of its kind ever to take place.


    The BBC eventually threw up an article but buried it on their second page while the Telegraph also provided some coverage in their Monday edition, crafting an entire attack article based on a few signs at the parade. You can see that below in today’s paper round up.

Trans Kids Deserve Better stage die-in outside Supreme Court [Trans Kids Deserve Better]

  • 12 young activists from Trans Kids Deserve Better staged a powerful die-in outside the Supreme Court, protesting the ruling defining “woman” solely by birth sex and excluding trans people from single-sex spaces. Carrying a coffin marked “dignity”, they marched in black, with their own police escort, from the Department of Health, highlighting the government’s erasure of trans kids’ rights. In a passionate speech, activist Imogen said: “We were promised safety, autonomy and a voice, but our dignity is dead… we will fight for every child who deserves a future.” The protest denounced government inaction, NHS restrictions and policies that silence and endanger them.

Toilet rules risk closing museums, warn Scottish cultural leaders [The National]

  • Museums Galleries Scotland has warned that Equality and Human Rights Commission proposals to ban trans people from using toilets matching their gender could force some museums to close or leave trans visitors without any facilities. The body criticised the EHRC guidance for focusing solely on exclusion, with no advice on how to support trans inclusion. It warned this could lead to humiliating “sex checks” by staff, an unsafe environment for all visitors, and increased harassment. Their response urged the EHRC to rethink its approach, arguing the guidance risks breaching human rights and damaging Scotland’s inclusive cultural sector.

MEDIA

Keir Starmer firmly in bed with The S*n and Rupert Murdoch

  • In the same week that it was revealed that ex S*n Editor, David Disnmore, will be taking up a communications role in Starmer’s government, Private Eye (1654) revealed just how close the Labour leader has got to the paper he once said he wouldn't even give an interview to.

    In addition to writing for The S*n, and praising the publication, Starmer has held meetings with Lachlan Murdoch, in line to take over his father's empire and drag it even further right.

    Starmer also attended the Murdoch’s Annual summer party, along with Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves. There was also a private lunch.

    Meanwhile, The Eye also report that Murdoch darling, and News UK chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, still hates Starmer's guts. Why? He was DPP when she was charged, alongside her then-lover, for phone hacking, among other things. She was acquitted at trial while Andy Coulson was found guilty.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Global allies unite for Pride as US and UK remain silent [Attitude]

  • Foreign ministries from Canada, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and several European nations including Spain, Belgium and Ireland issued a joint Pride Day statement affirming LGBTQIA+ rights and condemning “violence, criminalisation, stigmatisation or discrimination”. The statement pledged to “speak and act as one” amid rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment.

    Notably, the United States and United Kingdom declined to sign.

Shabana Mahmood delighted to taser prisoners [Times]

  • In Monday’s edition of the Times, they covered the story that anti-trans Mahood has given the green light to a trial in prisons that will see prison officers armed with tasers. As you can see in the image of her below, as she holds what appears to be a taser, she is delighted by the whole thing.

ICYMI

  • The trans rights stitch-up - How government plans to silence debate on the new rules [Ian Dunt]

Today’s papers on trans people

The Times [1]

There are many things about this article that make it instantly dismissible. Firstly, it’s in The Times. Secondly, it’s written by Sanchez Manning who seems to be employed to do nothing other than hate trans people, and thirdly it also features Sharron Davies, aka Swim Glinner, and Su Wong from the anti-trans group SEEN.

The article continues a trend that has taken hold in these papers since the Supreme Court ruling, talking about organisations ‘breaking the law’ in regards to bans which aren’t in place, as this article itself notes. After an opening paragraph that reads, ‘The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) has been accused of breaking the law by encouraging clubs to let transgender women play in female competitions’, Manning writes, ‘The ban, however, did not extend to social tournaments and the club contests in which many female grassroots players compete.’

Anger over tennis chiefs’ trans policy Sanchez Manning - Social Affairs Correspondent Sharron Davies posted on X that the LTA position was “insane and illegal” The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) has been accused of breaking the law by encouraging clubs to let transgender women play in female competitions. Britain’s national governing body for tennis banned trans women from competing in the women’s category for most domestic tournaments last January. The ban, however, did not extend to social tournaments and the club contests in which many female grassroots players compete. The LTA ruled in an update of its trans and non-binary policy that it was at the discretion of the individual clubs as to whether trans women could take part in “non-specified competitions”. The guidance goes a step further by encouraging clubs to let transgender women participate in female competitions. It states: “We strongly encourage venues to start from a presumption of being inclusive for trans and non-binary players by ensuring they provide competitive opportunities which allow them to take part in the category which matches their gender identity.” Campaigners lobbying for sporting categories to remain single-sex claim the LTA’s policy is “unlawful” following the Supreme Court judgment in April that the legal definition of a “man” and a “woman” refers to their biological sex. After this judgment many sporting bodies moved to ban trans women from female categories. Su Wong, from the Sports and Entertainment Equity Network (Seen), said the LTA had failed to adjust its policy to the Supreme Court ruling. Sharron Davies, the former Olympic swimmer who has campaigned on the issue, wrote on X: “This is an insane & illegal position by the LTA.” A senior LTA source said clubs should be able to set their own rules. He added that it would be “nonsensical” if a club for LGBTQ people could not hold a competition for trans players. A spokesman for the LTA said it would keep the policy under review. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said it would address in due course the rules about when competitive sports can be single sex.

Telegraph [1]

  • While a lot has been said about most news outlets ignoring Trans Pride in London, the Telegraph did not. This entire article is based on signs people held. It quotes rent-a-gob cis-het anti-trans activist, Helen Joyce, who said the signs revealed the “central hatred of women is to trans activism”. She then added, “One side in this debate stands up for everyone’s rights to safety, dignity, and privacy in single sex spaces.


    “The other calls for violence against women. It shouldn’t be hard for politicians and public figures to decide which side they are on.”


    It shouldn’t be, and yet so many people like Joyce make it so.

We must be armed, say ‘odious’ trans activists after court ruling The Daily Telegraph28 Jul 2025By Telegraph Reporter TRANS activists have called for their community to be “armed” after a Supreme Court ruling barred biological men from women-only spaces. A protester on the London Trans+ Pride march on Saturday carried placards reading: “DIY or Die. Trans emancipation. Not rainbow capitalism. Arm trans people.” Another sign read: “Bitch trolls from hell,” with pictures of JK Rowling and the bosses of For Women Scotland, who won the Supreme Court case against the Scottish Government on gender in April. The march to Parliament Square Gardens was the biggest annual trans protest in the UK, with about 100,000 people in attendance, according to organisers. The ruling from the Supreme Court redefined “biological sex” in a way that enables the exclusion of trans women from single-sex spaces and services. Organisers said this year’s message was centred on the theme of “existence and resistance”. Its key demands included an outright ban on conversion therapy, fully funded gender-affirming healthcare and a legal acknowledgement for non-binary people. Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy for human rights charity Sex Matters, which campaigns for clarity about biological sex in law and life, said the signs revealed the “central hatred of women is to trans activism”. She said: “The reason this movement treats JK Rowling and the grassroots campaigners of For Women Scotland as enemies is simply that they dare to say no to men who want to transgress wom- en’s boundaries. “One side in this debate stands up for everyone’s rights to safety, dignity, and privacy in single sex spaces. “The other calls for violence against women. It shouldn’t be hard for politicians and public figures to decide which side they are on.” Susan Hall, the leader of the Conservatives in the London Assembly, said: “If trans activists are claiming that they should be armed and are calling JK Rowling [a wonderful woman] and women activists bitches in hell, then they can’t be surprised when people don’t take them seriously and in fact are repelled by their odious stand.” Trans activists have called on Sir Keir to back transgender rights after Sir Sadiq Khan supported the march. The Mayor of London wrote on X: “Today, our capital proudly marks seven years of London Trans+ Pride. “As trans rights come under increasing pressure across the UK, this year’s march is a vital reminder: London is a city that stands for equality, dignity and pride – for everyone.” The Prime Minister signed up to a pledge “that trans women are women” when he was a Labour leadership candidate, but seemed to change his position following the Supreme Court ruling. “The Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman,” his spokesman said in April. Vicky Lee, the director and founder of the Way Out Club, said: “Over the last 32 years, I have been a Labour Party member and a diversity adviser for the Metropolitan and City of London Police. “I was proud of where we were under Tony Blair with LGBT liaison officers in every London borough, anti-trans hate policies, trans inclusivity, and trans rights. Keir Starmer, I can tell you now, under your watch, we have lost 15 years of progress. Trans people are now lost, scared and angry. Trans Pride on Saturday is a celebration, but this year it will also be a protest. “Please listen to the community of unique trans people. We are also nurses, doctors, scientists, lawyers, soldiers, and voters.” Article Name:We must be armed, say ‘odious’ trans activists after court ruling Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Telegraph Reporter Start Page:8 End Page:8

News Letter [3]

The News Letter is the oldest, continuously published English language newspaper in the world, so it is to its eternal shame that it has still not managed to leave the 18th century when it was founded.

With the world falling apart, they have decided that 12 children, who *might* have been seen at the gender clinic over the course of a decade is the biggest issue today and have splashed it across their front page.

Leaving aside that none of these children would have received treatment s they define it, despite what the News Letter claim in their subhead, they go on to print a full page of attacks on the LGBTQ+ community following Belfast Pride at the weekend, just to prove who they really are.

Their front page ‘story’ does, however, highlight some very concerning figures about the state of trans health care here for young people (and everyone else). A Belfast Health Trust FOI confirmed 438 under-18s have accessed Northern Ireland’s gender identity service since 2014, including between nine and 36 children under 10. The ‘peak’ year was 2015, when 68 young people were accepted, with numbers gradually declining since.

In 2024, 22 under-18s used the service.

The front page of the News Letter dated Monday, July 28, 2025. The main headline reads “Kids aged just five are NI trans patients” with a subhead, “As many as 12 have been treated in past decade”. The page also features an image of a man in an apple processing facility above the headline “Bramley cream of crop” and smaller features including “Vigils for tragic family” and “Britishness something to be proud of”. The overall tone of the front page is dominated by the trans healthcare story.
A double-page spread from the News Letter showing multiple articles focused on Belfast Pride and related political controversy. The main headline on the left page reads “Political protest curtails guest list at Pride parade” with a large photo of people marching in Belfast Pride under balloon letters spelling “PRIDE”. Below that, another headline reads “New clinic ‘will boost protest numbers’” alongside a photo of a man holding a Christian protest sign reading “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” On the right page, two main articles are visible: “Mock Christ figure ‘danced down streets’” with a photo of a Pride flag and the same balloon “PRIDE” letters, and “Criticism of SDLP over Pride presence” featuring a small headshot of a woman. The overall theme of the spread focuses on Pride, religious protest and political response.
New clinic ‘will boost protest numbers’ Christians demonstrating against Belfast Pride predicted last week’s controversy over a surprise £800,000 gender identity service will see large-scale protests next year. Held outside city hall, the protestors gave speeches against the LGBT movement and sin in general, citing scripture as the Pride parade passed on the opposite side of Wellington Place blasting pop music and club hits. The protest was smaller than usual, down to around 25 people – roughly half the amount who made their presence felt a couple of years ago, the News Letter was told. “Our numbers are small this year, but we believe God would have us be here to witness for Him,” said Raymond Stewart, who has been attending anti-Pride protests for two decades. From his perspective, the protest is necessary to show the continuing stand of Christians against LGBT ideology, which he says was rampant home last week with the news Health Minister Mike Nesbitt has decided to fund an £800,000 “gender identity service” in Northern Ireland. Details on that service are so far scarce; its existence was apparently revealed by LGBT group the Rainbow Project during the week, with a statement from the minister only coming after a News Letter enquiry. There is no lower age limit for it, and the move to set it up has caused unease within the UUP. Mr Stewart said: “The situation here is getting worse. The whole trans element in the [Pride] parade is frightening, and it’s frightening that Mike Nesbitt has decided to put up a transgender clinic. “The Ulster Unionist Party needs to wake up on this and call Mike Nesbitt out on it, because the electorate are not going to want it. Puberty blockers, those are destroying the lives of children and causing mayhem among families.” Mr Stewart predicted that an outcry over the gender identity service would see a substantial increase to the Christian protest’s numbers at next year’s Pride. “I would hope so,” he said. “I would hope that more Christians would waken up and see that people are standing up for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His gospel, and against the wickedness that this whole thing brings for our society.” A Christian protestor at Saturday’s Pride march
Trans figures revealed By Adam Kula adam.kula@newsletter.co.uk @News_Letter Children as young as five have been accepted as patients of Northern Ireland’s specialist transgender health service, the News Letter can reveal. The news comes after it was revealed last week that Health Minister Mike Nesbitt has committed extra funding for trans patients. The figures were obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the Belfast Health Trust, which runs the service. It sent the News Letter a breakdown of the under-18s who were accepted as patients at its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) since 2014. This shows that the peak year for under-18 patients being accepted onto the service was 2015, when 66 were accepted. The numbers have steadily declined since, and the figure for 2024, the most recent full calendar year, was 22. The total number of under-18s accepted by the service from 2014 to 2024 was 438. In terms of the youngest patients’ age, somewhere between three and five-year-olds have been accepted onto the service from 2014 to June 2025 (the trust refuses to divulge exact figures). In all, from 2014 to June 2025 the number of children beneath the age of 10 who have been accepted onto the service is somewhere between nine and 36. The trust also broke down its patient numbers by male and female – but the results are impossible to make sense of, because it is unclear if they refer to patients’ self-declared gender identity or their actual biological sex. In a move announced by the Department of Health but by trans lobbyists too, such as the Rainbow Project, it emerged investment was being made in trans services. When prompted for details, the department issued a statement from Mr Nesbitt which said: “I am committed to improving wider gender identity service provision for children, young people and adults in Northern Ireland. “Since 2019, my officials have worked closely and collaboratively with the Belfast HSC Trust, the Gender Identity Review Group, and Gender Identity Liaison Group to develop a business case for the expansion of the Gender Identity Lifespan service.” Though the statement spoke of an “expansion”, suggesting an existing service of that name is already running, Googling ‘Gender Identity Lifespan’ and ‘Northern Ireland’ brings up no information. Mr Nesbitt continued: “This investment capacity will increase to allow the most urgent referrals to receive the appropriate care they need in a timely way. “The funding investment will also provide much-needed additional medical and nursing resources into the service. “£806k funding will be allocated to Belfast trust in the coming weeks.” In addition to revealing under-18 patient numbers, the Belfast trust has also indicated to the News Letter that it has given triptorelin to children as a puberty blocker. The same drug has been used to suppress the urges of sex offenders – a practice sometimes referred to as “chemical castration”. However, it refused to provide the full list of puberty blocking drugs which it has used, stating that it would take too long to compile. The prescription of puberty blockers has now been emphasised across the UK, amid concerns about their long-term health effects and children’s ability to consent to taking them. Mike Nesbitt is giving more money to transgender services

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: The UK govt's attempt to eradicate trans people continues ]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-uk-govts-attempthttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-uk-govts-attemptSun, 20 Jul 2025 12:12:55 GMTThere is only one place to start this week's Trans Agenda and that is with Labour releasing new guidance for schools that has been described aptly by Dr. Natacha Kennedy as “Section 28+”.

Almost 21 years after the last Labour government finally repealed Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 legislation, Keir Starmer and co have managed to introduce something even worse.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It’s called Terf island for a reason.

UK AND IRELAND

Labour's new RHSE guidance continues its attempts to eradicate trans kids

The new RHSE guidance introduced by the Labour government represents another dangerous step back for trans children, this time in schools. With its explicit restriction on materials that allow students to "question their gender," effectively silencing discussions of trans identities, the guidance goes against most of the responses to their own consultation. Yet again, this is not something the majority of people want and it is being forced upon the population under the lie of ‘common sense’.

The vague language leaves schools with little choice but to avoid any mention of gender diversity, a la Section 28, legitimising transphobia further and empowering bullies, which you suspect might be the point. Many GCs believe if they just make it hard enough to be trans, people will stop being trans, as if that hasn’t repeatedly failed throughout human history. By substituting "transgender" with "gender-questioning," the guidance further eliminates language trans people use to refer to ourselves.

Dr Kennedy called it "ambient conversion therapy," isolating and traumatising trans children, and reinforcing a culture of discrimination and harm.

EHRC guidance delayed until after summer recess due to size of response [Yahoo News]

It was widely believed that the EHRC would rush out what is expected to be a viciously anti-trans update to their guidance in the wake of the ‘scientifically illiterate’ Supreme Court For Women Scotland ruling. However, with over 50,000 responses received, they will now take the summer to fine-tune their bigotry. The initial draft guidance, which was quietly rolled back, proposed that trans people could be excluded from sports or asked for birth certificates in some settings, and that single-sex services cannot include trans people without including all members of the opposite gender.

MPs oppose Starmer’s gender-critical pick for equality watchdog [Times]

MPs on the Women’s and Equalities Committee have written to Women’s and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson to oppose the proposed appointment of a GC to replace the outgoing GC, Kiswher Falkner. This move follows Dr. Mary-Ann Stephenson's appearance before the committee, during which she was repeatedly asked to condemn the practice of taking photographs of strangers in public bathrooms, declining to do so multiple times. She also admitted that she had personally donated to a GC fundraiser and attended the Filia conference, amongst other GC activities. Phillipson is likely to appoint her anyway.

You can read the letter, which was not initially intended to be made public, here. As you will see, they do not mention trans people in their reasons. This is a deliberate move to ensure that the issue isn’t hijacked by the media, whose speculation has led to the letter has been released. The trans community is clearly alluded to, but the committee’s concerns run much deeper.

Nurse cleared of misconduct over changing room dispute with trans doctor as tribunal continues [Guardian]

Nurse Sandie Peggie has been cleared at an internal hearing of gross misconduct after objecting to sharing a changing room with Dr. Beth Upton, a trans woman, at NHS Fife's Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy. Peggie had faced allegations of misconduct, misgendering Upton, and failing in patient care following an altercation in December 2023. However, an internal NHS Fife hearing found insufficient evidence to support these claims.

The employment tribunal is ongoing, where Peggie's legal team will no doubt hope to take advantage of the absurd Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of women under the Equality Act 2010 which the BMA called ‘scientifically illiterate’.

NHS waste £220k due to Peggie tribunal

NHS Fife has been forced to waste over £220,000 defending itself in the above employment tribunal instigated by Peggie. The £220,465.93 total was revealed following an intervention by Scotland’s information commissioner, who found NHS Fife had failed to respond to freedom of information requests. Given the financial strain on the NHS, one must ask: Who is funding Peggie’s actions, especially with figures like JK Rowling now setting up funds specifically to support cases like these against employers who hire trans people?

Peggie has also confirmed that she is suing the Royal College of Nursing.

Primary school celebrates trans actor as role model for masculinity [The Sunday Telegraph]

Streatham Wells Primary in south-west London has highlighted Elliot Page as an example of positive masculinity. In Teachwire, headteacher Sarah Wordlaw explained the school’s commitment to challenging gender stereotypes, saying Page and Harry Styles illustrate that masculinity can embody softness, strength and nuance. The Telegraph, via unnamed ‘educational professionals’, claimed the use of a trans man undermines the point that it is cis men who are wankers, although I’m not sure that is what they were going for. The school stands by its inclusive approach to representation. Hopefully they continue to do so when the media start harassing them relentlessly.

Police participation in Pride held unlawful after upset GC sues [11KBW]

The High Court has farcically ruled that police participation in Newcastle’s 2024 Pride in the City event was unlawful due to breaches of impartiality. The case, brought by gender-critical claimant Lindsey Smith, challenged the involvement of officers who marched and staffed a stall featuring the Progress Pride flag. Mr Justice Linden held that Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine’s authorisation of the force’s participation was irrational and gave a public impression of partiality. The court found Northern Pride to be a campaigning body promoting ‘gender ideology’, and concluded that the police engagement risked undermining trust in their impartial discharge of public duties. As I said, farcical.

The police force are believed to be appealing the ruling but have also begun removing any and all Pride rainbows from vehicles after being ordered to do so by the judge.

MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT

The Law of Mayhem [Anvil Arts]

Proteus Theatre Company presents The Law of Mayhem, a play by acclaimed trans writer Tabby Lamb, based on the true story of Michael Dillon and Roberta Cowell. The pair, who met in 1949, were the first in the UK to undergo gender-affirming surgery, performed in Basingstoke.

AROUND THE WORLD

Canada - Judge halts deportation of non-binary American citing Trump-era policies [The Globe and Mail]

A Federal Court judge has stopped the deportation of non-binary American Angel Jenkel, criticising Canada’s Immigration Department for overlooking the impact of US policies on LGBTQ people. Jenkel, who moved to Ontario in 2022, feared persecution upon returning to the US due to its increasingly hostile environment for trans and non-binary people under Trump’s administration. The judge ruled that Jenkel's deportation should be delayed, pointing to a flawed risk assessment that ignored recent evidence of discrimination.

Canada - Byelection candidate halts campaigning after trans rights threats [National Post]

Independent candidate Sarah Spanier, 33, has stopped canvassing in Alberta’s Battle River-Crowfoot byelection after receiving death threats linked to her support for trans rights. One social media user warned she would be “met with a shotgun” if she knocked on their door. Spanier reported the threats to police and said the abuse reflects the hostility she has faced for advocating for transgender people during the campaign.

Philippines - Quezon City enacts gender-inclusive health ordinance [Daily Tribune (Philippines)]

Quezon City has passed a landmark Gender-Inclusive Health Ordinance, making it the first Philippine local government to ensure accessible, respectful, and affirming healthcare for all residents, regardless of gender. Authored by Councillors Bernard Herrera and Dorothy Delarmente, the ordinance provides gender-affirming primary care, mental health support, and specialised services within the public health system. Mayor Joy Belmonte highlighted the need to address healthcare barriers for gender-diverse and transgender people, acknowledging historical discrimination. The ordinance also bans conversion therapy and integrates gender-affirming care into existing public health programs, ensuring equality in healthcare access.

USA - Trans girl’s jaw broken after DC places her in boys’ unit [The Washington Post]

A trans girl held at Washington DC’s Youth Services Center suffered a broken jaw after being attacked while placed in a boys’ unit, despite a judge’s prior order that she be housed according to her gender. Four youths have been charged, but the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services has yet to explain why she was transferred or how the assault was allowed to happen. Officials say an investigation is ongoing, but the incident reflects broader systemic failures and growing risks to trans youth amid increasing attacks from the Trump administration.

USA - Transgender asylum seeker released from ICE custody [Las Vegas Review-Journal]

A transgender asylum seeker from Mexico, held for over a month in Washington state, was released after a federal judge ordered her freedom, citing a lack of due process by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

USA - Children’s National halts gender-affirming care amid political pressure [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]

Children’s National Hospital in Washington DC will stop prescribing medication to trans minors from 30 August due to pressure from the Trump administration. While support services will apparently continue, medical care such as prescriptions and lab monitoring will cease, putting many kids at severe risk of harm. The move follows federal subpoenas and ongoing pressure from the Trump administration, which has made removing trans healthcare a policy priority, just like their friends in Labour in the UK. The hospital has been condemned for their decision to comply rather than resist. Over half of US states have already banned transition care for minors as they race to catch up with the UK which has a ban across all four countries.

USA - Paxton weaponises consumer law in lawsuit targeting trans swimmers [The Dallas Morning News]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against US Masters Swimming, accusing the organisation of “deceptive” practices for allowing trans women to compete in female categories, despite no Texas law prohibiting adult trans participation. The suit, filed in Denton County, does not allege violations of any trans-specific sports law, instead claiming consumer fraud. US Masters Swimming introduced a restrictive interim policy on 1 July, but Paxton dismissed the move as “too little, too late”.

SPORT

[Canada] Farcical Alberta to exempt visiting transgender athletes from sports ban [Times Colonist]

Alberta's new regulations, set to take effect this autumn, will ban trans athletes from participating in women’s sports. However, out-of-province trans competitors will still be allowed to compete. Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko explained that the province lacks authority to regulate athletes from other jurisdictions. The new law, effective from September 1, will prevent trans athletes aged 12 and over from competing in female amateur sports within Alberta.

Mentions in Parliament

Baroness Fox of Buckley, House of Lords, Employment Rights Bill debate, 14 July 2025 [Hansard]

“As we have heard, employment tribunals hear many cases relating to workplace banter, with 57 cases in 2024. If we look at human resources literature, we see that it is full of advice to employers on managing banter in the workplace between their employees. One horrendous suggestion put out to employers was to monitor conversations and attempt to pick up or pre-empt any problems. Another suggestion was to send people on—wait for it—appropriate conversation training sessions. I have just been sent the details of a consultant—there is always a consultant behind all this—who is an inclusive language and banter specialist and runs workshops at £495 a shot. One of his first workshops is “What does the term transgender mean to you?”—I will not say what it means to me out loud or I might get done by the banter police. Anyway, cisgender is a term that I do not think we want to be put into the hands of the banter police.”

Viscount Hailsham, House of Lords, House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, 2 July, 2025 [Hansard]

“Secondly, many of the issues one is wholly conversant with have changed. When I first came into Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence was wholly unknown and we did not have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters to try to regulate AI, social media and debate transgender in a sensible way. is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues than my generation are to address them. That requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age and limiting the period for which peerages are created. So I beg to move but, as I said, I will not be testing the opinion of the House.”

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[Fabled Trans Lobby descends on Parliament, media miss it]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/fabled-trans-lobby-descends-on-parliamenthttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/fabled-trans-lobby-descends-on-parliamentThu, 26 Jun 2025 12:50:37 GMTOn Wednesday 25 June, an estimated 900 trans people and allies descended on Westminster in what was the largest LGBTQIA+ mass lobby in UK history.

Yet, if you relied on the national press to know it happened, you’d be forgiven for not having a clue.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Daily Express front page 26 June 2025 - WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING FOR WOMEN'S SAFETY'
Daily Express front page Thursday 26 June 2025

Organised by Trans Solidarity Alliance, the event was bigger than even the famous Section 28 lobby of the 1980s. Parliamentary staff reportedly commented that it was one of the largest mass lobbies they’d seen in over a decade of working there. But, despite the scale, and significance, the vast majority of the British press responded, as usual, with a wall of silence.

It wasn’t because they didn’t know, media outlets were contacted well in advance.

The only major news outlet to acknowledge the event from those I checked was ITV.com, who ran the headline “Hundreds of trans activists descend on Parliament to oppose 'bathroom ban'.”

That’s it.

No BBC News. Nothing in The Guardian. Not a line in The Times, The Independent, Metro, London Standard, The Mirror, Daily Mail, or Telegraph. Head over to Northern Ireland and it was the same with the Belfast Telegraph and News Letter. In Scotland, The National, The Scotsman and The Herald were all similarly silent, although The Scotsman did find space to attack the BMA because of their support for trans people.

The Telegraph, of course, found plenty of space to attack trans people:

  • Michael Deacon in Features, decrying The Guardian for using the word “people” in relation to cervical cancer screenings.

  • A report on Police Scotland’s supposed “half and half” strip searches, with the ‘half and half’ being a trans women who haven’t had lower surgery.

  • Another panic piece about doctors daring to affirm trans patients' identities at the BMA.

Police Scotland to offer ‘half and half ’ trans strip searches The Daily Telegraph26 Jun 2025By Simon Johnson SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR TRANS women with breasts and a penis can ask for a female police officer to search their top half and a male officer to search their bottom half, under new guidance issued in Scotland. The five-page document issued by Police Scotland said searches will usually be conducted by an officer of the same biological sex as the transgender person. The guidance, issued following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in April, means that police searches of trans women would usually be carried out by male officers. But it said that trans people could request that they are searched by an officer that matches their “lived gender” instead to ensure their dignity is “respected” and “to minimise distress”. If this happens, the guidance stated that “efforts will be made to ensure an appropriate officer conducts the search, where this is operationally viable to do so”. Written consent would be required from the officer conducting the search, an “authorising officer” of inspector rank or above, and the trans person. Trans people are also entitled to ask for a “separate area search” if one part of their body has a different “anatomical presentation” from another. “This means that one half of their body will be searched by one biological sex officer and the other half of their body will be searched by a different biological sex officer,” the guidance said. Police Scotland said the new policy had been developed following “extensive advice” for legal and human rights advisors, following April’s Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex. But For Women Scotland (FWS), the ‘These aren’t creatures of myth half male, half female ... its disturbing police are pandering to delusions’ feminist campaign group that won the landmark case, warned that a trans person altering one half of their body does not mean they have changed sex. Susan Smith, an FWS director, said: “They aren’t some creature of myth, half male and half female. It is disturbing and distressing that the police are pandering to these extreme delusions.” She also argued that “written consent cannot override the law and will be a poor excuse if a female officer subsequently discovers that the suspect she agreed to search intimately has committed sex offences.” The force is the UK’S second largest after London’s Metropolitan Police. The British Transport Police has previously confirmed trans women arrested on the railways would in future be stripsearched by male officers. Asst Chief Constable Catriona Paton said: “This is a complex and important area of policing and searching members of the public is a significant intrusion of their personal liberty and privacy. “It is critical that as an organisation, Police Scotland continues to fulfil its legal duties as well as ensuring officers and staff feel confident that they are conducting searches lawfully. She said the force’s priority was to ensure decisions were made in line with its service values of “integrity, fairness, respect and upholding human rights”. The guidance covers all searches. If a trans woman requests that a female officer conduct the search, the guidance stated that this could be refused if it could “not occur within a reasonable time, or the risk be deemed too great.” Transgender officers can also only search suspects of the same biological sex, it said. Article Name:Police Scotland to offer ‘half and half ’ trans strip searches Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Simon Johnson SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR Start Page:3 End Page:3
Daily Telegraph 26 June 2025

The Times, not to be left out, ran Eleanor Hayward’s Page 2 attempt to stir yet more anger at doctors under the headline “‘Abysmal’ BMA fails to produce gender critique.” And while the Daily Mail, like the others, didn’t cover the lobby at all, the Express dedicated its front page, shown above, to anti-trans activists continuing to attack a colleague who happens to be trans.

There’s a lazy myth, peddled by right-wing commentators and regurgitated by an all-too-compliant and eager press, that the so-called Trans Lobby wields undue power in British politics. Yet, just days before this event was due to take place, authorities on the Parliamentary estate banned trans members of the public from using appropriate toilets, despite there being no legal requirement to do so and the EHRC walking back their update. They did this because two anti-trans activists complained that a trans woman used a toilet she was allowed to use and has used for decades.

We know that if a handful of anti-trans protestors had shown up outside Westminster, the coverage would have been wall-to-wall, because we've seen it repeatedly.

The 'Trans Lobby' can only dream of having that sort of power.

If you’ve ever doubted that trans people are only considered newsworthy in this country when they can be made the villains of a tabloid smear campaign, this should settle it.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: New study, new law, EHRC U-turn & more]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-new-study-new-lawhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-new-study-new-lawMon, 23 Jun 2025 13:44:27 GMTIt has been a few weeks since I last published a Trans Agenda, although there was a separate post about the press coverage following the UK Supreme Court ruling that you may have missed. The sheer volume of developments partly explains the gap. Simply keeping up with what is happening is a job in itself.

On that note, I remain active most days on Bluesky, where I post many of the stories that later appear in the Trans Agenda. Subscriptions to this newsletter help make that possible, as do PayPal donations. They also support my ongoing work clipping and archiving UK media coverage, which you can find on Bluesky under the hashtag #TransAgendaClips. That tag also lets people mute the relentless propaganda pushed by the UK press, if they prefer not to see it in their feeds.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The UK and the US continue to goosestep on with their coordinated campaign of trans elimination, although the UK did a weird thing last week and offered some protection to the trans people they seem so desperate to marginalise further. You can find out more about that below. It should come as no surprise that the two countries are so closely aligned on this issue, given both are being directed and funded by the same actors.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also featured heavily in the news over the past few weeks. You may notice few EHRC-related stories covered below. That is because a separate, dedicated post on the EHRC will follow later this week, along with an international Trans Agenda. In the meantime, I strongly recommend reading Ian Dunt’s excellent piece on the state of the organisation and how it was captured.

I also urge you to consider signing the open letter calling on the Women and Equalities Committee to launch an investigation into the EHRC.

UK & IRELAND

UK puberty blocker ban causing serious harm to trans youth, University of London study finds [Journal of Gender Studies]

  • A University of London study has found that the UK’s ban on puberty blockers is inflicting “serious adverse effects” on trans and non-binary youth. Led by academic Natacha Kennedy, the research highlights severe declines in mental health, increased rates of self-harm, and suicidal ideation among young people denied treatment. In contrast, those who accessed puberty blockers reported clear improvements in wellbeing. The study concludes that the ban is causing “severe psychological, physical and social harm” and states, “Those advocating banning puberty blockers have justified it on the grounds that it is to ‘protect children’. The evidence here shows that is quite clearly not doing that.”

EHRC retreats from guidance following legal pressure [Good Law Project]

  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission has done a quiet U-turn on their claims that employers are legally required to provide single-sex toilets based on birth sex in a formal legal response to the Good Law Project. The original update, which encouraged discrimination by employers, is also laughably reclassified as 'some observations'. The Commission also contradicts Chair Kishwer Falkner, acknowledging that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to toilet access. She said that it did not.

Government backs tougher penalties for anti-trans hate crimes [Hansard]

  • In a development as welcome as it was surprising, the UK Government has agreed to support a new clause in the Crime and Policing Bill that would enhance sentencing for hate crimes against trans people. Jolyon Maugham KC described the move as “a rare moment of good news” amid a wider surge in anti-trans policies.

Judicial guidance confirms trans people must be respected on death certificates [UK Judiciary]

  • New guidance issued by the Chief Coroner for England and Wales affirms that trans people's gender can be accurately recorded on death certificates, regardless of whether they held a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The document clarifies that legal sex in this context is not fixed to birth sex, and coroners may determine the recorded sex based on a person’s life. Radical.

    Coroners are urged to prioritise the usual - dignity, privacy and respect - with explicit reference to Article 8 of the ECHR. Intrusive inquiries into a deceased’s trans history are discouraged unless strictly necessary.

Trans NI fully funded through donations

  • Trans Pride Northern Ireland receives no council funding, relying instead on public donations and fundraisers, something I wasn’t aware off until recently. Unsure if they would be able to afford it, a date hasn’t even been set for 2025. Enter the generous people of Bluesky who stepped up and ensured that the fundraiser, which was at £2.8k when I put out the call, hit their target of £5k in around two hours.

    But, it didn’t stop there. At the time of writing, the fund is heading for £7k. You can still donate here with any surplus going towards Trans Pride NI 2026. Alternatively, you could help Causeway Pride, who were the first in UK and Ireland to ban politicians. Their goal is a modest £1.1k.

Trans woman denied care by Dublin hospital highlights systemic failures in trans healthcare [GCN]

  • Paige Behan, a trans woman who was refused treatment for a serious infection at St James’s Hospital in Dublin, has condemned the incident as part of a wider crisis in Irish trans healthcare. After undergoing surgery in Germany, Behan was turned away by urology, gynaecology, and plastics departments when she sought urgent care. Though the hospital has since apologised and acknowledged a gap in care pathways, Behan said the apology was “cold” and insisted, “They knew they had failed me.” She added, “There is an urgent, undeniable need for both education and compassion in trans healthcare.”

Minister deflects criticism as UK plunges in LGBTQ+ rights rankings [Phillipa East]

  • The UK’s Equalities Minister has come under fire after offering a cursory response to the nation’s dramatic fall to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s Rainbow Map, a drop triggered by the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a letter shared publicly by author Philippa East, the Minister sidestepped domestic failures by highlighting overseas LGBTQ+ initiatives.

Quakers come under attack for supporting trans people [Telegraph]

  • Quakers in Britain are facing criticism from anti-trans campaigners after confirming their commitment to trans inclusion, saying they will not restrict access to toilets based on sex assigned at birth. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said they would continue to welcome and affirm trans and non-binary people. He added: “We must respect the dignity of each person to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived experience.”

Tribunal rules teacher was fairly dismissed over accessing safeguarding records [Telegraph]

  • A Christian primary school teacher who refused to respect a trans pupil’s gender and accessed confidential safeguarding records has lost her employment tribunal. The teacher, anonymised as “A”, was dismissed after objecting to using a pupil’s name and pronouns, claiming it would go against her conscience and Christian faith. She later accessed and copied sensitive safeguarding records without authorisation. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, ruling the school acted appropriately to safeguard the pupil. The judge upheld a permanent reporting restriction, prioritising the child’s right to live peace.

MEDIA

Daily Mail issues belated apology after falsely accusing GIDS doctors of ‘doling out’ puberty blockers [MailOnline]

  • More than a year after publishing an article that lied about doctors working with trans children, the Daily Mail has issued a correction and partial apology to Dr Aidan Kelly and Dr Heather Wood, former clinical psychologists at the NHS’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). The original April 2024 article wrongly claimed the pair were “doctors who doled out puberty blockers to a generation of vulnerable children.” In reality, they did not prescribe medication, instead working within NHS protocols as part of a multidisciplinary team. The Mail now concedes this, stating, “we take this opportunity to apologise for any contrary impression.”

    This correction, issued in June 2025, arrives long after the damage was done. The Mail has been one of the loudest voices in Britain’s anti-trans media campaign, helping fuel the moral panic that led to the ban of puberty blockers, medication that is safe, effective, and often life-saving for trans kids. The impact of this manufactured climate has been devastating, as we seen above with Natacha Kennedy's study. An apology for a “contrary impression” is cold comfort to those suffering the real-world consequences of media lies that continue unchecked because trans people can rarely afford to take legal action.

The National rejects Rowling’s ‘anti-woman’ claim, defends pro-trans stance [The National]

  • In response to JK Rowling labelling The National “an anti-woman newspaper,” editor Laura Webster dismantled the accusation, highlighting the paper’s feminist credentials, which are numerous. The attacks came after The National described Sex Matters as “anti-trans,” a term easily defended based on the group’s campaigns against trans inclusion. Rowling's remark, made on X, also indicated she hadn’t even read the article before launching her minions at the paper. If you haven’t already read the open letter, I would highly recommend that you do. If you have, read it again. You know you’ll enjoy it as it is rare to see this happen on the pages on a UK newspaper.

SPORT

Trans swimmer competes topless in protest against Swim England’s exclusionary policy [Reading Today]

  • Anne Isabella Coombes, a 67-year-old trans woman from Reading, swam topless at the Cornwall County Masters to protest Swim England’s ban on trans women in female categories. After competing as a woman in 2023, she was barred under new rules introduced later that year. Forced into the men’s ‘open’ category, Coombes exposed the absurdity and humiliation of the policy that insists she wears women's swimwear while competing in the men's category. “This is meant to hit trans people and nobody else,” she said, adding, “Existence is resistance.”

Cis women beat trans women at rugby and Oliver Brown is not happy [Telegraph]

  • A rugby match in Oslo, designed to challenge bans on trans women playing women’s rugby, saw a team of cis women thrash a team of trans women 34–7. Despite this result, Daily Telegraph chief sports reporter and protector of women, Oliver Brown, framed the event as a political stunt rather than recognising that cis women aren't actually as shit at sport as he likes to believe.

    The match, called “Ruck You,” began with seven trans women facing off against seven former international cis women players, before the teams mixed. Notably, the only points scored by the trans team came after the sides integrated.

CONSEQUENCES

Sharron Davies suspended by charity after homeless comments [Plymouth Herald]

  • Anti-trans activist Sharron Davies has been suspended as patron of Plymouth homelessness charity Shekinah Mission after publicly criticising the Government’s decision to repeal the Vagrancy Act. Swim Glinner posted on social media that “decriminalising rough sleeping IS a huge mistake”, describing parts of San Francisco as “dangerous & no go areas” and asking, “How in anyone’s crazy imagination will this help?”

    In response, Shekinah’s CEO John Hamblin said the charity “applauded and welcomed” the repeal, adding the organisation had spent over 30 years fighting the injustice of street homelessness. He added, "We were made aware today [June 19] that an existing Patron of Shekinah strongly expressed an opposing view via a social media platform. In view of this we have suspended our connection with the Patron and will try to contact them to discuss the content of the post."

    Something else worth noting from that article is how the 'journalist', Carl Eve, describes Plymouth-native, Davies, as "a passionate advocate for women's rights" who "has long spoken openly on the issue of the biological advantage - and unfairness - of trans women in women's sports." Clearly, this is a lie that Eve himself believes, and an example of how this nonsense is parroted uncritically everywhere.

Stephen Fry says JK Rowling has been radicalised by trans-exclusionary ideology [The National]

  • Stephen Fry has finally publicly condemned JK Rowling’s views on trans people, stating she has been “radicalised by TERFs” and describing her rhetoric as “cruel, wrong and mocking.” Fry, who previously enjoyed a friendship with Rowling, something she now denies, has defended her in the past.

    He said her gender-critical views have “completely altered the way she talks and engages with the world.” Fry criticised her failure to condemn violent transphobic statements from others. He described her commentary as “inflammatory and contemptuous,” adding, “She seems to be a lost cause for us.”

    He was immediately attacked by the anti-trans papers and her devoted followers.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The papers: The day after the Supreme Court ruling ]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-papers-the-day-after-the-supremehttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-papers-the-day-after-the-supremeThu, 12 Jun 2025 10:44:20 GMTThis report focuses on the Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Times, Sunday Times, Guardian and Observer, English print editions only.

It has been almost two months since I stopped publishing all the clips I collect, after a year of doing it weekly. I’m still clipping, still recording, but not publishing them all due to time constraints more than anything. Also, it’s not fun for anyone, me alt texting them all nor you having to look at them. The point was made and now it’s about documenting it all for the court cases that will most definitely come.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The last week featured in the Trans Agenda saw 79 clips and it was that which pushed me to take a break. So, it was great to find that the following week, when I finally caught up, had 79 as well. Welcome back.

The Supreme Court judgement was delivered on 16 April and 17 April saw the busiest day since I began recording the number of articles, coincidentally, on 16 April 2024.

In the year leading up to the judgment, I clipped 1,075 articles from the papers listed at the start of this post. The papers read by the judges on the Supreme Court and the political elite – the Telegraph and Times – accounted for 68.84%, nearly all of which were attacks based on lies, misrepresentations and the silencing of trans voices.

Even the Guardian and Observer, for all their liberal posturing, ran enough similar pieces that judges who like to think of themselves as progressive would still feel legitimised in siding with reactionary nonsense.

The day after the ruling, four papers ran 28 articles between them. It was front-page news in them all. There was no other story in the world that mattered more to them that day.

The Telegraph led with bold declarations: “Trans women are not women” and "We won! Our courts have finally said what our politicians refuse to," framing the judgment as a long-overdue vindication of so-called ‘common sense’ in what is now an infamous front page that Graham Linehan wore on a t-shirt as he appeared in court, charged with harassing a trans child. It will become their ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ to future generations.

Daily Telegraph front page TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT WOMEN

The ruling, in their view, would usher in “huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance” and spark a “seismic” shift across “lavatories to sports”. It was, they insisted, the end of “years of fevered debate”. Their claims didn’t even stand up for 24 hours.

There was no ambiguity in the Mail either, why would there be? They had played their part in ensuring this result was delivered. Its front pages screamed "HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE," with follow-up pieces celebrating “tears, cheers and toasts” outside the Supreme Court and insisting “an era of collective madness is over.” If only.

Daily Mail front page HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN...AND COMMON SENSE

The narrative was clear: the battle had been won, the enemy - trans rights - defeated, and the “truth” of biological sex reinstated. For a time, at least.

The Times adopted a more formal tone but no less a celebratory stance. “Sanity restored,” it announced, hailing the court’s unanimous decision as a triumph over “faddish, destructive radicalism”. They warned of “chaos” in equality policies, declared the “end in sight for the supremacy of trans ideology,” and assured readers that women’s “safe spaces” had been legally fortified from people who were never a threat.

Times front page Equality policies in chaos as court defines woman

The Guardian framed the ruling as a potential reset, noting that “new battle lines” were being drawn, while political leaders may now “breathe a sigh of relief”. Its acknowledgement that the ruling may “have far-reaching impact on trans rights” was one of the few concessions to the lives most directly affected.

Guardian front page Legal definition of woman 'is based on biological sex'

Since the ruling, however, their tone has changed significantly and it’s not quite clear if that is because they feel guilt for the role they played or the departure of the Observer’s Terfs and the ever-growing distance between editor Kath Viner and her staff. I suspect it’s a little of all three.

Years of groundwork went into delivering this ruling, and it was that as much as anything that the papers were celebrating. The only thing ‘clear’ however is that it will all be looked back on by historians and the queer community as a watershed moment in the UK and the names of those who gloated will fill the pages alongside the rest of fascism’s enablers.

I look forward to the day when I no longer have to write the Trans Agenda and, instead, it becomes a court exhibit and art installation.

Headlines from 17 April 2025

  • Cowards must be brought to book, Telegraph, Oliver Brown

  • Former FA chairman blasts football’s governing body over ‘atrocious’ transgender policy. FA and ECB warned of legal threat from court verdict. Top officials told they should ‘stand down immediately’, Telegraph, Tom Morgan, Ben Rumsby

  • Trans women are not women. Supreme Court’s ruling will see huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance, Telegraph, Daniel Martin, Janet Eastham, Hayley Dixon

  • From lavatories to sports, this ruling is seismic for women. Ministers poised to change the law after landmark judgment puts to bed years of fevered debate, Telegraph, Hayley Dixon

  • We won! Our courts have finally said what our politicians refuse to, Telegraph, Suzanne Moore

  • Trans women are not women. Supreme Court’s ruling will see huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance, Telegraph, Daniel Martin, Janet Eastham, Hayley Dixon

  • Trans activists lick their wounds and vow to force Labour into change, Telegraph, Daniel Martin

  • The women who led the push for victory. How three Mumsnet users, one sacked academic and a charity boss fought through dogma and death threats, Telegraph, Janet Eastham

  • Rowling’s friend claims she was barred by vet because of gender views, Telegraph, Telegraph reporters

  • Supreme court and the outbreak of common sense (cartoon), Telegraph, Blower

  • At last, some legal common sense, Telegraph, Kemi Badenoch

  • HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE. As judges rule that women ARE defined by biological sex, will Labour finally act to protect their rights?, Mail, Sam Merriman, Harriet Line

  • TEARS, CHEERS AND TOASTS TO VICTORY. Jubilant scenes at Supreme Court as activists celebrate end of their seven-year battle, Mail, Sam Merriman

  • How Starmer transitioned from saying 99.9% of women don’t have a penis to wanting to protect women-only spaces, Mail, Harriet Line

  • Far too many liberals jumped on the trans bandwagon and betrayed women, Mail, Julie Bindel

  • An era of collective madness is over. This is not a ‘defeat’ for trans women, it’s an accurate reflection of who we really are, Mail, Debbie Hayton

  • JK’s barrister friend ‘banned from vets over gender beliefs’, Mail, Freya Barnes

  • Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’. Supreme court ruling may have far-reaching impact on trans rights, Guardian, Severin Carrell

  • ‘Real issues now start’. New battle lines formed as judgment sinks in, Guardian, Jessica Murray

  • Politicians may be breathing a sigh of relief as clear ruling lets them dodge difficult questions, Guardian, Peter Walker, Severin Carrell

  • Equality policies in chaos as court defines a woman. Campaigners hail victory for biological sex. Legal backing for safe spaces for women, Times, Geraldine Scott, Sanchez Manning, Daniel Sanderson

  • Landmark ruling to affect work, sport, the NHS and education, Times, Sanchez Manning

  • End is in sight for the supremacy of trans ideology, Times, Janice Turner

  • Vets ‘expelled’ me because of my views, says barrister, Times, Jonathan Ames

  • The judge, dramatically lit and gazing poses the question “WHAT IS A WOMAN?” written in the top left corner of the frame. The skull he holds has long pink hair. The skull’s speech bubble reads: “TWO X, OR NOT TWO X, THAT IS THE QUESTION…” (cartoon), Times, cartoonist

  • Sanity Restored. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that the description ‘woman’ should be based on biological sex is a victory for truth over faddish, destructive radicalism, Times, comment

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda International: Kenya, Canada, USA]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-international-kenyahttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-international-kenyaWed, 28 May 2025 13:31:18 GMTPlease consider moving your subscription to Patreon.

Across the globe, trans people are facing escalating state interference, strategic neglect, and deliberate erasure. In Kenya, trans refugees warn of a fresh wave of danger as the Shirika Plan threatens to dismantle what little protection refugee camps offer. In Canada, the Canadian Medical Association is mounting an unprecedented constitutional challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26, arguing it forces doctors to abandon both ethics and patients. Across the US, trans rights are under coordinated attack, from Texas striking down federal protections to Trump’s new budget bill threatening to eliminate gender-affirming care nationwide.

Meanwhile, glimmers of hope remain: Colorado has enacted protections against misgendering, a trans mayoral candidate triumphed in Pennsylvania, and a suppressed Utah report confirms what we already know - gender-affirming care saves lives.

Trans refugees fear fresh danger as Kenya plans camp integration [The Standard (Zimbabwe)]

  • Trans refugees in Kenya’s Kakuma camp are warning that a new integration policy could put their lives at even greater risk. The Shirika Plan aims to turn refugee camps into open communities, but many trans refugees say they already face violence inside the camps and fear even less protection outside. Some have requested repatriation, despite the dangers they fled in Uganda, Burundi, and the DRC. Advocacy groups say their safety concerns have been ignored, while Trump’s halt on refugee resettlement has dashed hopes of relocation. One trans woman said: “This camp has always been a death trap.”

Doctors challenge Alberta transgender law [The Globe and Mail]

  • In a significant legal move, the Canadian Medical Association has joined three Alberta physicians to challenge Bill 26, which bans puberty blockers and hormone therapy for under-16s and prohibits gender-affirming surgeries for minors. The CMA calls the law an “unprecedented government intrusion” that overrides clinical judgment, violates doctors’ conscience rights under the Charter, and endangers trans youth already facing high levels of harm. Dr Jake Donaldson, who treats around 40 young trans patients, warned the legislation forces doctors to “stand on the sidelines and watch them suffer.” CMA president Dr Joss Reimer said politicians must not dictate care.

US targeting Canadian trans health care [Lethbridge Herald]

  • The US government’s “snitch line” for reporting gender-affirming care has sparked outrage for targeting Canadian health workers. Though US officials claim the 'initiative' is now limited to American conduct, the site still accepts non-US postcodes, raising fears of cross-border surveillance. Trans Care BC has since removed staff names from public listings and alerted clinicians to the risk.

Colorado moves to protect against misgendering and deadnaming [Las Vegas Review]

  • Gov. Jared Polis has signed a new law that extends anti-discrimination protections to trans residents of Colorado who are intentionally misgendered or deadnamed in settings like the workplace or in school. A lawsuit has already been filed by free speech brigade, challenging the law, claiming it breaches their First Amendment rights.

Texas court strikes down federal transgender workplace protections [Borger News-Herald]

  • A US district court in Texas has sided with state attorney general Ken Paxton in a case targeting federal guidance on transgender workplace rights. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the Biden-era EEOC guidance, which sought to protect gender identity under Title VII, overstepped its authority. The guidance would have required employers to respect gendered pronouns, bathroom access and dress codes. Paxton claimed this imposed “radical gender ideology,” and the court agreed, vacating the rules. No appeal is expected.

Texas bill requiring ‘biological sex’ in health records advances despite LGBTQ+ concerns [Las Vegas Reviewv]

  • Texas lawmakers have advanced a bill requiring patients’ medical records to list their “biological sex” and any “sexual development disorder,” prompting alarm. The measure would forcibly out trans patients to potentially unsupportive healthcare providers, increasing risks of discrimination and denial of care. Proponents claim the bill ensures doctors have complete information for treatment, but in reality it targets trans people under the guise of clinical necessity. The bill, having passed both House and Senate, now awaits reconciliation before becoming law.

Trans candidate moves a step closer to historic mayoral win in Pennsylvania [Philadelphia Inquirer]

  • Erica Deuso, a Democratic activist and pharmaceutical manager, has won the party’s nomination for mayor of Downingtown, Chester County, taking 62 per cent of the vote. If elected in November, she would become Pennsylvania’s first openly trans mayor. Backed by local Democrats and outgoing mayor Phil Dague, Deuso campaigned on consensus-building and cost-saving while preserving the town’s “good-neighbour” ethos. Only three openly trans officials hold office statewide. Deuso said the result “means a lot to my community” and said that trans people will “continue being here despite everything we’re hearing from the government.”

US Army to lie on records of trans soldiers

  • The US Army will begin altering personnel records to reflect only soldiers’ sex assigned at birth, according to a leaked memo obtained by Reuters. The directive, which follows a February Pentagon order, instructs commanders to immediately update systems to show "biological sex" only, asserting the lie that sex is “unchanging during a person’s life.”

Trump budget bill threatens nationwide ban on gender-affirming care [Boston Globe]

  • A new budget bill passed by the US House includes sweeping provisions that would end federal funding for gender-affirming care via Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. The measures would strip access to puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for trans people of all ages, potentially removing coverage for over 276,000 trans Medicaid recipients. GLAD called it “a relentless attack” on trans lives, unsupported by medical science or human rights.

Utah lawmakers face pressure after their own report backs gender-affirming care [Salt Lake Tribunev]

  • A long-awaited state-commissioned report has confirmed what trans advocates have long argued: gender-affirming care improves mental health outcomes for trans youth. Despite this, Republican lawmakers, who pushed Utah’s 2023 ban, are refusing to reconsider, citing discredited claims and ignoring their own report’s findings, including the reduced suicide risk for teens who accessed care early.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: Legal threats reign Supreme]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-legal-threats-reignhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-legal-threats-reignMon, 26 May 2025 11:03:12 GMTNews you need, the perspective you won't find anywhere else. The trans community's guide to UK news, media and politics and our place in it.

26 May 2025

Apologies for the random nature of how the Trans Agenda has been published lately. I'm finding the Sunday slot is not really working for me at present and, while the football has now ended for a couple of months meaning my Sundays are free again for at least six weeks, I think I will move it permanently to a new slot during the week. Until I work out what day is best, please bear with me.

Now, on with the nonsense...

If you are subscribed on Substack, please consider moving over to Patreon, even if you have a free subscription. Thanks.

UK & IRELAND

UN experts warn UK could face new trans rights case in European court [Irish Legal]

  • The UK may soon face fresh legal action at the European Court of Human Rights over its Supreme Court ruling that the term “woman” in the Equality Act refers solely to 'biological sex'. 18 UN experts have warned the judgment could justify exclusionary practices that endanger trans rights, particularly for trans women. They raised concerns that the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance risks blocking trans people from accessing gender-appropriate facilities. Highlighting past ECHR rulings, the experts urged UK lawmakers to reform laws in line with international human rights obligations to ensure, yep, you guessed it, dignity and equality for all. All the dignity.

EHRC under pressure over secret meeting with anti-trans group [TACC]

  • Documents obtained by TACC reveal that the anti-trans group Sex Matters held a closed-door meeting with the EHRC in September 2024, pressing the Commission to support blanket exclusions of trans people from services. Follow-up emails to Baroness Falkner included suggested edits to statutory guidance, aiming to roll back trans rights under the Equality Act 2010, which is exactly what the EHRC did with their interim update that was rushed out at 10pm on a Friday evening without even informing EHRC staff.

Court rules misgendering not automatically transphobic [Scottish Daily Mail]

  • A Scottish sheriff has ruled that referring to a trans woman by her sex assigned at birth is not inherently transphobic, acquitting Jane Sutherley of abuse charges brought by fellow inmate Alexandria Stewart. Sheriff Thomas Millar concluded, erroneously, that referencing someone’s “original biological state” does not in itself constitute transphobia.

Streeting moving towards hormone ban for trans kids

  • The High Court has dismissed a legal bid to force the UK government into an immediate ban on hormone treatment for trans kids, with judges stating that the anti-trans Health Secretary Wes Streeting has convened a working group looking at doing that, anyway.

    This follows legal action from anti-trans activist Keira Bell, who seeks to force a blanket ban after campaigning to restrict puberty blocker access. Bell, who regrets her own transition and wants to punish all trans people because of her own mistakes, sought to pressure Streeting into banning hormones for under-18s, arguing that his decision to wait for further expert guidance was “irrational,” unlike everything she is doing with her life.

    That ‘expert guidance’ will be deliberately crafted to exclude trans people and deliver the result Streeting and Bell want, anyway, so I'm not sure why she has to waste so much money rather than just showing a little patience.

Former Supreme Court president criticises reaction to Supreme Court’s sex definition ruling [Guardian]

  • Former Supreme Court president, Lady Hale, has criticised the reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it “misinterpreted”. Speaking at a literary festival, she said the judgment does not prohibit gender-neutral facilities and questioned the concept of “biological sex”, noting some doctors argue it does not exist in fixed terms, which is almost correct. It is 'most, not 'some'.

Parliament stands firm on inclusion with EHRC guidance pending

  • Despite pressure from anti-trans activists, both Houses of Parliament have confirmed they will not ban trans women from using female toilets, choosing instead to wait for final guidance from the compromised Equality and Human Rights Commission, when they will be given cover to do it.

Police ban trans officers from strip-searching women after legal pressure

  • Trans police officers will no longer be permitted to carry out strip-searches on detainees of the same gender, following new guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. The change comes in response to growing pressure from anti-trans activists. They are still unhappy, however, as the guidance allows limited exceptions, where a trans detainee may request a search by someone of the same gender, as long as the officer consents. These so-called 'feminists' appear to have no problem with police strip searches in general, as long as no trans people are involved. To be fair, that's their view of everything.

Rowling pledges support for lawsuits against trans-inclusive policies

  • JK Rowling has pledged to fund legal action by female prisoners who object to sharing prison space with transgender women, calling it a “human rights violation.” Rowling also said, “Saying these things is not hate, but truth.”

    Last week, it was reported that a group of five women are suing the government because of their treatment in prison, but it has nothing to do with trans inclusion. One of the women, a domestic abuse survivor, alleges that she was left handcuffed and alone to a male officer while in labour.

    Rowling seems to have no interest in that case, but she followed up her initial offer by launching a private fund to support legal cases opposing trans inclusion in women’s spaces. The “JK Rowling Women’s Fund” aims to back individuals and groups seeking to force their view of “sex-based rights” on to workplaces, public life, and services.

POLITICS

Labour pushing for by-election after Plymouth’s first trans councillor joins Lib Dems

  • Plymouth Labour is demanding a by-election in Compton after Dylan Tippetts, the city’s first openly trans councillor, defected to the Liberal Democrats. Elected as a Labour councillor in 2022, Tippetts left the party accusing it of “throwing transgender people under the bus” before switching parties just five days after briefly sitting as an Independent. Labour said residents “did not choose a Lib Dem councillor” and accused Tippetts of betraying the mandate given by voters. Tippetts, who will not stand again next year, said the Lib Dems are “the party of fairness” and defended his decision as one of principle.

Labour cancels women’s conference amid legal threats

  • Labour has cancelled its annual women’s conference, nonsensically citing legal risk after the Supreme Court ruling on single-sex services. The decision follows a vote by the party’s National Executive Committee to rewrite policies restricting women’s representation initiatives to those “born female”. The move has provoked backlash from both trans rights advocates and anti-trans activists. Labour for Trans Rights condemned it as “a blatant attack on trans rights”, while the anti-trans Labour Women’s Declaration warned of “incendiary” consequences.

Sinn Féin’s support dips amid growing disillusionment [Belfast Telegraph]

  • Sinn Féin has dropped to 26% in the latest Lucidtalk Assembly poll, its lowest rating in three years. While it maintains an eight-point lead over the DUP, the fall comes amid backlash over its perceived failures in government and recent abandonment of trans rights in Northern Ireland. Support for the TUV and UUP has risen to 12% as they try to capture the type of people who would vote Reform in NI if they could. Health, cost of living, and jobs dominate concerns, but younger and progressive voters also rank immigration and education as key issues. The poll suggests growing discontent across the spectrum, particularly among marginalised communities.

MEDIA

IPSO force The Herald to print 'clarification'

  • The generally-useless Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ordered The Herald to issue a 'clarification' after the paper published a 'misleading' headline about Police Scotland’s handling of sex and gender data in rape cases. Under the headline “Police will not record sex of suspects in rape cases”, the original article distorted Police Scotland’s actual policy, which does not omit sex data but handles cases involving trans suspects individually, pending an ongoing internal review. They can handle them individually because there are so few.

RedBird consortium agrees Telegraph takeover for £500m

  • A consortium led by US private equity firm RedBird Capital has agreed a £500m deal in principle to acquire the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. RedBird will become the controlling owner, with support from UK investors to meet legal limits on foreign ownership. The deal follows legislation barring foreign states or affiliates from owning UK news titles. Minority stakes may include Lord Rothermere’s DMGT (Daily Mail), pending regulatory clearance. IMI, backed by Sheikh Mansour, will retain a small share. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy is expected to trigger a public interest review of the transaction.

    Current editor, Chris Evans, is believed to be happy about the takeover, which indicates he will be allowed to continue his obsession with trying to destroy trans people on a daily basis.

SPORT

Fans protest FA transgender ban at Wembley final

  • Supporters from Chelsea Pride and Rainbow Devils staged a protest ahead of the Women’s FA Cup final at Wembley, condemning the FA’s decision to ban trans women from participating in football at all levels. The ban has been echoed in cricket and netball. Protesters marched up Olympic Way with trans flags and banners, calling out the “profound cruelty” of excluding trans players. Rainbow Devils stated: “Football is meant to unite, not divide.” The FA declined to comment, no doubt still cowering at the threat of legal action from the well-funded anti-trans hate brigade.

FA bans trans women to 'protect' women’s football while letting clubs like Blackburn walk away

  • As the FA bans trans women from the women’s game in the name of fairness, its silence on structural failures within the game speaks volumes. This week, Blackburn Rovers confirmed they will withdraw from WSL2, the second tier of women’s football, after deciding not to meet basic league standards for facilities, staffing, and player welfare.

    The club's exit highlights the fragility of the domestic game, which receives nowhere near the backing its male counterparts enjoy. While the FA targets a minority, it offers little-to-no protection to the women’s teams it claims to defend.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NHS faces rising negligence costs while fast-tracking trans care ban [Guardian]

  • MPs have condemned the government for setting aside £58.2 billion to cover NHS negligence claims, while failing to act on avoidable harm in patient care. A damning report by the public accounts committee said ministers had not implemented promised safety reforms, despite record payouts of £2.8 billion last year, including £536 million in legal fees alone.

    I’d like to point to the contrast with how quickly the government passed emergency legislation to restrict healthcare for trans children based on fabricated safety claims, while showing no urgency to address real, ongoing harm in NHS maternity care and other services. Two-thirds of maternity units in England were rated substandard in 2023, yet ministers have yet to act. But, you know, ‘just protecting women and children’ etc etc.

Tory MPs still a bigger danger than trans people

  • Patrick Spencer, Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, has been charged with sexually assaulting two women at The Groucho Club in August 2023. The 37-year-old was interviewed by police in March and now faces two counts of sexual assault. He has been suspended from the Conservative Party and had the whip withdrawn. Spencer denies the charges and intends to contest them in court. He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 June. Tory MPs continue to remain a bigger danger to women than trans people yet no-one seems to be calling for them to be segregated from society.

Labour councillors still a bigger danger than trans people [BBC]

  • Keith Jones, a Cardiff councillor and former teacher, has been expelled from Welsh Labour following a party investigation that found he sexually harassed a 17-year-old at a social event in 2016. The incident, which occurred in Liverpool, was corroborated by multiple witnesses, according to the party’s Independent Complaints Board. Jones, who now sits as an independent councillor for Llanrumney, had previously been suspended for inappropriate messaging and was dismissed from teaching in 2010. The complaint was submitted in 2022 after plans to appoint Jones to Cardiff Council’s cabinet.

Italy’s top court rules in favour of lesbian mothers’ parental rights

  • Italy’s Constitutional Court has ruled that both women in a lesbian couple can be listed as parents on a child’s birth certificate, a landmark decision hailed as “historic” by opposition politicians and a direct challenge to Giorgia Meloni’s hard-right government. The judgment found it unconstitutional to deny parental recognition to the non-biological mother in same-sex families, calling such exclusion discriminatory and contrary to the child’s best interests. The ruling rebukes Meloni’s efforts to restrict LGBTQ+ family rights and dismantles her interior minister’s 2023 directive forbidding town halls from registering both parents in same-sex households.

SHORTS

  • Bloomsbury, best known as the publisher of JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series, saw its share price tumble nearly 20% after reporting a 22% drop in annual profits to £32.5 million.

  • “Shabana Mahmood will consider overhauling medical and legal convention that medical treatment must receive the consent of the individual.” [Times]

  • "Angela Rayner is under pressure to introduce legal protections for staff expressing Right-wing views as part of Labour’s workers’ rights reform" [Telegraph]

  • "Peter Tatchell accused stewards at a pro-Palestine march of using the police to ‘silence’ his criticism of Hamas. "The veteran human rights activist was holding a placard which read ‘Stop Israel genocide! Stop Hamas executions!’ when he was arrested by the Metropolitan Police." [Mail]

  • "Prisoners could be used by councils to fill potholes and empty bins under radical plans for chain gang-style rehabilitation." [Mail]

  • "Paedophiles and other sex offenders will face mandatory chemical castration under radical plans being considered by the justice secretary." [Times]

WHAT’S ON

Parliament is in recess until 2 June 2025

Monday 26 May

  • Spring Bank Holiday

Tuesday 27 May

  • Report: NHS Scotland waiting time statistics

Thursday 29 May

  • CPAC Hungary begins

Friday 30 May

  • Russell Brand in court on rape charges

  • CPAC Hungary ends

Sunday 1 June

  • Ban on trans women playing women’s football in England begins.

  • Ban on disposable vapes takes effect

  • Polish presidential election runoff

  • Atlantic hurricane season begins

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: The trans fightback gains strength]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-trans-fightbackhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-trans-fightbackSun, 18 May 2025 11:54:50 GMT18 May 2025

The Trans Agenda

Hello, and welcome a very hung-over Trans Agenda. There was a massive Trans Rights protest in Belfast, the likes of which I have never seen. Thousands of people marched from Writer's Square to Belfast City Hall in a display of support that shocked many who have been involved in fighting for trans people for years, myself included. You can see the scale of the protest here.

After the march, my girlfriend and I stopped off in a bar to get out of the sun, encouraged to pick this one in particular because of their 2-for-1 cocktail offer. The cocktails, however, had to be the same, and when we couldn't agree on one we both wanted, we just got two each. 7.4 units in two drinks, drunk quickly so we could meet others, combined with stupid temperatures for Belfast in May meant that I was ever so slightly drunk and, therefore, on a total go-slow today.

Anyway, as you will see below, there was a lot to get through, so let's crack on.

The Trans Agenda is now available on Patreon and I’d encourage everyone who is subscribed to move over there.

As always, you can sign up for free but every penny helps me keep doing this in addition to my poorly-paid day job. Alternatively, you can also support via Paypal.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

Northern Ireland identity clinic funding finally approved [Exclusive]

  • Northern Ireland's health minister, Mike Nesbitt (UUP), has finally signed off on funding to enhance the regional identity service in Northern Ireland after having it on his desk for over a month. Just under half the £1.9m that was needed has been approved. This money is expected to be released in June which, I'm sure entirely coincidentally, is when updated guidance from the Equality Commission on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling for Northern Ireland is expected. The Equality Act does not apply in NI but it is widely expected that they will be pressured to follow England's commands by politicians at Stormont.

Labour will not renew Falkner's contract [Exclusive]

  • Many were surprised when Labour granted Baroness Falkner a 12-month extension to remain in her role as Chair of the EHRC, wreaking havoc on the lives of trans people. Doing so has allowed them to palm off a lot of their dirty work to the woman put in place by Liz Truss. I've been told that her contract will not be renewed, so it now becomes about how much more damage she can do before she leaves at the end of September.

NHS and ministers accused of suppressing suicide data linked to trans care cuts [Jolyon Maugham]

  • Jolyon Maugham KC has accused Wes Streeting’s department and the NHS of “naked dishonesty” after reporting that a key report on the suicide of young trans people was being withheld. The Good Law Project director said the National Child Mortality Database completed a report in March 2024 to support suicide prevention efforts after the death of Jason Pulman, a trans teenager. Officials initially said that the document was being withheld until 2026, but later claimed it was “not intended for publication” at all.

UK plummets down rankings for LGBTQ+ rights [ILGA/Good Law Project]

  • The UK has dropped from 16th to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s Rainbow Map of LGBTQ+ rights following the Supreme Court’s ruling redefining “sex” in equality law. The decision, and supporting guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, have weakened trans protections, prompting a steep fall. According to Trans Europe and Central Asia, this marks a turning point, with more human rights reversals than gains for trans people.

Huge rise in children on gender care waiting list sparks renewed concern [Mail]

  • The number of children waiting for specialist gender care on the NHS in England and Wales has risen sharply, with 6,225 now on the list (a 12% increase) and 157 under the age of 10. Average waiting times exceed two years. Dr Roman Raczka, president of the British Psychological Society, warned that “demand is currently outpacing supply” and said access to timely support is “essential” to avoid crisis.

EHRC extends consultation after backlash over trans guidance [source]

  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has extended its consultation on formal guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. The EHRC’s interim advice was rushed out without internal discussion (see below for more on this), prompting distressing (and illegal) changes in workplace policies.

    The EHRC will now allow six weeks for feedback instead of two. MPs on the Women and Equalities Committee urged the watchdog to ensure its final code protects all people, including trans people. They also wrote to the EHRC to ask for the extension, applying more pressure on the compromised watchdog.

EHRC faces internal revolt over trans guidance rollout [Guardian]

  • The EHRC is facing growing unrest among its own staff over interim guidance issued in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The guidance, published without warning, advised that trans people could be excluded from single-sex spaces, sparking fear, confusion and anger.

    Staff reportedly had no prior knowledge of the advice before its release, and many were left fielding public criticism without being briefed. Insiders described the process as “shambolic” and “secretive”, with some staff now considering leaving the organisation. Stakeholders have also begun to distance themselves, citing a loss of trust.

    One person told the Guardian, “Most people, including some fairly senior ones, had no idea the interim guidance was coming until it was published late on the Friday evening … Staff working on sex and gender issues hadn’t been told, and nor had the duty press staff who were meant to explain it to the media. It was completely shambolic …

    “The pushback has been really strong. Some stakeholders are saying they can no longer work with us. Loads of staff say they’re looking for other jobs.”

    At a recent all-staff meeting, questions to Chair Kishwer Falkner and CEO John Kirkpatrick were said to be combative over the handling of the guidance and fears it undermines the EHRC’s commitment to protecting trans rights, a ship that sailed long ago.

Legal experts warn Supreme Court ruling breaches trans rights [Attitude]

  • Over 60 MPs, Lords, and parliamentary staff attended a trans-led legal briefing in Westminster warning the Supreme Court’s ruling could breech human rights obligations. Speakers, including Jess O’Thomson, Robin White, Crash Wigley, Oscar Davies, Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, and Dr Sandra Duffy, highlighted that the ruling deepens discrimination against trans people and undermines case law. They criticised the Equality and Human Rights Commission's interim guidance as misleading and harmful. Hosted by Nadia Whittome MP, the session called for parliamentary opposition to any rollback of rights.

Labour delays schools guidance on trans pupils as legal challenge looms [Mail]

  • Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson declined to confirm whether updated guidance for schools on supporting trans pupils will be published before the summer holidays and this was enough for the Mail to declare the guidance will be delayed.

Good Law Project launches judicial review [Good Law Project]

  • The Good Law Project has launched legal action against the government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Labour rejects Tory pressure to scrap gender-neutral toilets [Mail]

  • The Labour government has confirmed it will retain gender-neutral toilets in government buildings, rejecting previous plans introduced by Kemi Badenoch to remove them.

Unison backs trans woman’s run for female seat [Telegraph]

  • Unison, the UK’s largest trade union, has no issue allowing Ellie Waple, a 23-year-old trans woman, to stand for a female seat on its national executive committee, much to the Telegraph's annoyance.

Civil servants consider strike action over trans exclusion in workplace facilities [Mail]

  • Civil servants are threatening legal and industrial action over government guidance that restricts access to facilities based on sex assigned at birth. Members of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, the largest civil service union, argue the policy amounts to workplace segregation of transgender staff and say it undermines both equality and dignity. A motion set for debate at the union's annual conference calls for coordinated opposition to the rules and rejects the framing of sex as biologically fixed. Their conference is due to take place from Tuesday 20 May until lunchtime on Thursday.

Health boards defend inclusive policies amid misleading claims of legal defiance

  • Several Scottish NHS health boards have said they will await updated guidance before making any changes to inclusive gender policies, following the UK Supreme Court's April ruling on the Equality Act. Contrary to claims in the Daily Telegraph, which misrepresents both the ruling and legal obligations, the court did not mandate a blanket ban on trans people using facilities suitable for their gender.

    Organisations including NHS Lothian, NHS Fife, and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have taken a responsible approach by awaiting formal guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, expected this summer.

    Despite pressure from anti-trans groups and politicians, these boards are acting in line with public health best practice, and a duty of care to all service users.

Senior magistrate resigns after misgendering Brianna Ghey [Ashleeee’s Not Ashley]

  • Dr Elizabeth-Jane Peatfield has resigned from the magistracy following backlash over a post that misgendered murdered trans teenager Brianna Ghey. Peatfield’s comments, made on the day of sentencing for Ghey’s killers, caused outrage for their cruelty and disregard for Brianna. Her resignation follows an investigation into whether her remarks breached judicial conduct and undermined public trust. Ghey’s murder was confirmed in court as a hate crime rooted in anti-trans hostility.

Stroud Pride bans gender-critical views, citing harm to trans inclusion [Telegraph]

  • Organisers of Stroud Pride have stated that people holding gender-critical or “LGB” views will not be welcome at this year’s event. A call for performers included a warning that those who do not recognise trans people as part of the LGBTQ+ community will be excluded.

Topless protest outside Holyrood denounces ruling on trans rights [Pink News]

  • A group of trans women staged a topless protest outside the Scottish Parliament on 17 May in response to the UK Supreme Court ruling. Protesters described the action as a "public act of grief, resistance and solidarity", marking what they called the death of trans rights in the UK. Wearing red paint and tape over their mouths, they denounced both the ruling and Holyrood’s new policy enforcing access to facilities by birth sex. Protester Sugar called the judgement "an act of erasure" and warned of "a descent into fascism."

Sinn Féin banned from Trans and Intersex Pride Dublin over puberty blocker stance [source]

  • Trans and Intersex Pride Dublin has banned Sinn Féin from participating in this year’s march, citing the party’s failure to provide sufficient clarity on its position regarding trans healthcare and the UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex. Despite multiple engagements with senior figures, including Mary Lou McDonald, David Cullinane, and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, organisers said the party failed to oppose the ban on puberty blockers in Northern Ireland or commit to resisting similar measures in the Republic of Ireland. The group described Sinn Féin’s stance as inadequate and disappointing.

    I am told that, internally, Sinn Féin are furious about the all these Pride bans. If only they were as angry on behalf of the trans people whose healthcare they helped take away, and not solely because their front as an ally is being shown for the sham that it is.

Omagh Pride dedicate this year's event to trans people [Omagh Pride]

  • In a statement on socials, they wrote, "On Saturday 14 June, Omagh will once again open Pride season in Northern Ireland with its fifth annual parade. We've decided our theme this year is ‘Trans Lives Matter’, and we'll be putting trans rights front and centre."

Government rejects call to legally enshrine right to transition [UK Govt]

  • The UK government has declined a petition calling for a law to guarantee access to physical transition via NHS services for adults. In response, the Department of Health insisted that such a law is unnecessary, stating that NHS patients already have the right to clinically appropriate care (if they can get past the gatekeepers). The government acknowledged long wait times and lied, saying services are expanding.

AROUND THE WORLD

US: Defense department to begin screening for trans people [source]

  • The US Department of Defense has issued implementation guidance for Executive Order 14183, titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness." This directive mandates that service members with a current diagnosis, history, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria are ineligible for military service. The policy also rescinds previous guidance supporting transgender service and requires all military records to reflect only male or female designations based on what they think is biological sex.

EU: Court makes “unprecedented” decision for trans man in France [Huffington Post]

  • A Strasbourg court has ordered the Bas-Rhin health authority to cover a trans man’s mastectomy in a landmark ruling described as “unprecedented” by his lawyer. The court found that requiring additional documentation created inequality based on gender identity, breaching Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The man, who began his transition in 2017, was also awarded €3,000 in damages. His legal team hopes the judgment sets a precedent, with further cases pending across France. The decision marks the first time a French court has recognised such treatment denial as discriminatory.

MEDIA

Irish papers see uptick in anti-trans content [source]

  • Posting on Bluesky, JesALady reported, "In the last week I found around 28 articles in Irish media with non-trivial mentions of #trans topics.
    - 5 on SF ban from T&I Pride Dublin
    - 3 on healthcare - 2 on transphobia
    - 1 on the ex-teacher
    - 6 on ex-TV writer
    - 8 on UK Supreme Court ruling and/or sport
    - 3 general cultural articles

Lineker defends Gaza stance and speaks out in support of trans people

  • Gary Lineker has defended his support for Palestinians, stating “if you’re silent on these issues, you’re almost complicit” in an exclusive interview with The Telegraph. The outgoing Match of the Day presenter, who faced a confected backlash after sharing a pro-Palestinian Instagram post, insisted his criticism targets the Israeli government, not Jewish people, and called the Gaza conflict “beyond depraved”. He also addressed trans inclusion in sport, expressing sympathy for trans people and pushing back against “bigoted views”. Lineker added: “They’re some of the most persecuted on the planet. I genuinely feel really badly for trans people.”

    The author of the piece, Oliver Brown, is furious throughout when Lineker will not agree with him as he trots out line after line of GC nonsense. Brown followed this piece up the next day with an article attacking Lineker as 'arrogant' and demanding to know why he didn't address this issue when he was hosting the BBC's FA Cup final coverage on Saturday.

    Lineker's quotes from the interview include:

“They’re some of the most persecuted on the planet, trans people. You’ve got to be very careful not to have bigoted views on that. I genuinely feel really badly for trans people. Imagine going through what they have to go through in life. Is there even any issue? It’s the same swimmer, the same weightlifter, the same boxer. They’re the only people I ever see.”

“Are you telling me that there are many people who pretend to be women just so they’re going to be good at sport?”

“We’ve got the Women’s Euros in the summer. Let’s see if there’s one issue – I don’t think there is.”

Gary Lineker interview in the Telegraph


ANY OTHER BUSINESS

  • Labour licensed exports of more military equipment to Israel in the final three months of 2024 than the Tories did for all of 2020-2023, new figures have revealed [The National]

WHAT’S ON

Full Parliament business can be viewed here.

Monday 19 May

  • 🚨Debate, Westminster Hall, 4.30pm, e-petition 701159, relating to transgender people self-identifying their legal gender.

  • 🚨Oral questions, House of Lords, 2.30pm+, Discussions with Sports England on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010, following the Supreme Court decision in "For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16" on 16 April.

  • Legislation, House of Lords, 2.30pm+, Data (Use and Access) Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons - They attempted to get an anti-trans amendment in the last time which was rejected by the Commons.

  • Keir Starmer hosts EU-UK Summit in London.

  • Keir Starmer is expected to address Parliamentary Labour Party meeting.

  • 78th World Health Assembly begins.

Wednesday 21 May

  • Prime Minister's Questions, House of Commons, 12pm.

  • Committee, Women and Equalities, 2pm, Misogyny: the manosphere and online content - Oral evidence.

  • Report: UK consumer price index.

Thursday 22 May*

  • Donald Trump meme coin contest winners' dinner.

Friday 23 May

  • Report: NHS bed availability and occupancy.

  • Laurence Fox in court on sexual offence charges over an upskirt photo of TV star Narinder Kaur.

Saturday 24 May

  • Arsenal face Barcelona in UEFA Women’s Champions League final.

Sunday 25 May

  • Trans rights protest in London.

  • Venezuela holds legislative and regional elections.

  • Five years ago: George Floyd murdered.

*Parliament goes into recess on 22 May and will return on 2 June.

]]><![CDATA[PRIDE bans politicians as teachers say 'no' to anti-trans policies]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/pride-bans-politicians-as-teachershttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/pride-bans-politicians-as-teachersMon, 12 May 2025 14:42:13 GMT12 May 2025

The Trans Agenda

Although there was a Trans Agenda weekly edition released yesterday, the stuff that has happened today seemed too important to keep until the weekend. As things develop, this might become a more regular feature. As it is, there are two main stories that are important, one other that offers clarification of the situation in Ireland and another that proves just how confected this whole war on trans people really is. Plus, check out the 'Any other business' section for an update on Graham Linehan, who was in court today.

I would also like to take this time to encourage all subscribers on Substack to consider cancelling their subscription and moving over to Patreon. If you have taken out an annual sub here and would like it moved across, just let me know.

As always, you can sign up for free but every penny helps me keep doing this in addition to my poorly-paid day job. Alternatively, you can also support via Paypal.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

Pride bans politicians in major rebuke over trans rights betrayal [view statement]

  • The organisers of the UK’s largest Pride events in Birmingham, Brighton, London and Manchester have announced an unprecedented ban on all political party participation in their 2025 marches, citing the systemic failure of politicians to protect trans people.

    In a collective statement, they accuse current political leaders of abandoning the trans community, warning that “we will not stand by as the dignity, safety, and humanity of our trans siblings are debated, delayed, or denied.”

    The decision is a significant blow to Labour, who have caused growing anger within the LGBTQ+ community since coming to power in the summer. Despite claiming to be allies, Labour has introduced new restrictions on trans rights that go beyond the requirements of the UK Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Equality Act and the discredited Cass Report while claiming credit for the Sullivan Report.

    While repeatedly stating that trans people should be treated with “dignity and respect,” the Labour leadership has parroted anti-trans rhetoric at every opportunity and acted accordingly, rolling back rights in ways even the Conservative government did not.

    The Pride organisers have made clear this is not a symbolic gesture. It is a direct call for accountability. Their statement demands full protections under the Equality Act, dignified access to NHS gender care, meaningful reform of the Gender Recognition Certificate process, and sustainable funding for trans-led services.

    “Anything less is not allyship, it is abandonment,” they write.

    They vow to continue fighting for a future where every trans person can live safely, freely and proudly, and until there is real action, no political party will be welcome on their platforms.

    Took them a while, but they got there in the end.

Teachers back trans rights after court ruling [Daily Mail]

  • Britain’s largest teaching union has voted to support trans teachers’ rights to use toilets aligned with their gender. The National Education Union (NEU) passed a motion titled "trans rights are human rights", following the Supreme Court ruling that defined “woman” as biological sex under the Equality Act.

    The EHRC’s interim update erroneously claimed this could justify restricting trans women from women’s toilets. The NEU will now support legal challenges and call on schools to adopt inclusive policies. General Secretary Daniel Kebede said trans people are unfairly treated as a threat and deserve dignity and protection. The Daily mail framed this as teachers 'defying the Supreme Court,' when it is nothing of the sort.

Irish gender law unaffected by UK Supreme Court ruling [Lexology]

  • The UK Supreme Court’s ruling that defines “woman” as biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 has no direct impact on Irish law. While the judgment has implications for UK policy and practice, Ireland operates under a distinct legislative framework. Gender recognition is protected in Ireland under the Gender Recognition Act 2015, and trans discrimination is addressed under “gender” in equality law. Irish courts have consistently upheld trans rights, and there is no indication of plans to adopt the UK’s approach.

Women who swim at Hampstead Ladies' Pond welcome trans women despite media and GC claims [London Evening Standard]

  • We hear a lot from people who hate trans people telling us what women think, but rarely do we hear from cis women when they disagree with the cult. This, from the Standard was refreshing. They interviewed a range of women who use the pond and none of them had a single problem with trans women. In fact, it will no doubt seriously hurt GCs how inclusive these women, whom they silence, were.

    They also highlighted that there are individual changing rooms people can use, should they have a problem with who else is in the changing room.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

  • Anti trans "Adrian Ramsay is to stand as Greens co-leader with another of the party’s MPs, Ellie Chowns" [Guardian]

  • Graham Linehan pleads not guilty to harassing woman and damaging her phone [The Journal]

THE PAPERS

The papers I monitor were relatively quiet on Monday with just the article mentioned above regarding teachers in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph copying from the Mail on Sunday to bring us the story of a very damaged woman who seems to hate trans women because her dad, who wasn’t trans, sexually abused her. Decent journalists would encourage her seek therapy.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: The storm calms, but for how long?]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-storm-calmshttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-storm-calmsSun, 11 May 2025 10:18:56 GMTThe Trans Agenda

11 May 2025

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Welcome to the first edition of the Trans Agenda to be published on Patreon as I start the move away from Substack. After a couple of weeks off following the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent fallout melted my brain, I am back with some changes.

Things have quietened down, somewhat, but I do not expect it to stay that way. New grifters are appearing every week in the papers as the GC cult step up their legal threats in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling they don’t even understand themselves. They do seem to have trouble understanding their own court rulings as standard, one might almost suggest it is willingly.

As I‘m catching up, there is likely some stuff I’ve missed, but going forward there will be some more changes. You can read about the changes to the clips below in the Paper section while I will also be doing a standalone politics piece weekly, time allowing and looking at some other bits and pieces.

As always, you can sign up for free but every penny helps me keep doing this in addition to my poorly-paid day job. Alternatively, you can also support via Paypal.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

Holyrood toilet ban branded 'exclusionary' [i]

  • Trans people will be barred from using toilets at Holyrood that match their gender from Monday, following a decision by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The rule change, which restricts access to facilities based on "biological sex," (who's checking?) comes in the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling that redefined the legal meanings of “woman” and “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 but does not tell them to do this.

    Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone confirmed the decision in an email to Parliament staff, stating that Holyrood would now provide separate male, female, gender-neutral and accessible toilets, and that the move is intended to ensure "clarity," "privacy," and "dignity" in line with legal obligations.

    It, of course, does none of these things.

    Vic Valentine, manager of the Scottish Trans and Equality Network, said the decision was “rushed, unworkable and exclusionary,” and warned it would segregate trans people from the centre of Scottish democracy. “We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring ‘confidence, privacy and dignity’ to everyone,” Valentine said. “It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.”

Trans councillor quits Labour over rights stance

  • Dylan Tippetts, a trans councillor in Plymouth, has quit Labour, accusing the party of abandoning trans rights. His resignation follows the Supreme Court ruling, something that has been eagerly embraced by the Labour leadership to remove trans rights in excess of the verdict. Tippetts will sit as an independent and not seek re-election.

Peer-review finds serious flaws in Cass report’s methods and conclusions [link]

  • A peer-review of the Cass Review has found major flaws in the evidence used to support its recommendations. Using the ROBIS tool, researchers identified a high risk of bias in all seven of the report’s systematic reviews, citing vague eligibility criteria, poor study selection, protocol deviations, and failure to address these issues in the conclusions.

    The review also found serious problems in the Cass-commissioned primary studies, including methodological weaknesses and unsupported claims. The authors argue that the Cass report applied double standards to the evidence and misrepresented findings.

Liverpool Pride ends partnership with Barclays after anti-trans move [LCR Pride]

  • The LCR Pride Foundation has ended its partnership with Barclays following the bank’s announcement that trans women would be banned from using female bathrooms in its buildings. The decision, confirmed unanimously at an Extraordinary General Meeting on 3 May, was a direct response to statements made by Barclays CEO CS Venkatakrishnan who has also misunderstood the UK Supreme Court’s ruling. The foundation condemned the move as dangerous and discriminatory, saying it violates the rights of trans, Non Binary, and gender nonconforming people.

NC21 smashed in the House of Commons

  • An amendment to the Data Bill that would have forcibly outed trans people and forced us to carry identification that was contrary to our reality was defeated 363 to 97 in the House of Commons on Wednesday after Labour refused to support the Tory amendment. Slamming the amendment Nadia Whittome said, “Trans people and trans-led groups have been very concerned by new clause 21 tabled by the Opposition. They have rightly described it as an attack on trans people’s rights and their privacy. Can the Minister offer some reassurance that, as well as opposing this amendment today, the Government will not seek to introduce similar legislation via other means in the future?”

    In response, Sir Chris Bryant said, “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.” Alarmingly, however, this supposed ally added, “We are already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority. Following a review, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Government Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”

    Someone needs to tell Bryant he can support trans people or he can support Sullivan and the Supreme Court. You do not get to do both.

Sturgeon calls out EHRC interim update [BBC]

  • Speaking to reporters in the Scottish Parliament, the former SNP leader said: "I would be very concerned if that interim guidance became the final guidance. I hope that's not the case because I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable. I think some of the early indications would raise concerns in my mind that we are at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable and I don't think the majority of people in the country would want to see that.

    "It certainly doesn't make a single woman any safer to do that because the threat to women, as I think we all know, comes from predatory and abusive men.”

    Sturgeon also refused to bow to demands from GCs that she apologise for introducing gender recognition reforms which are now referred to as ‘controversial’ but received cross-party support before they were targeted by those working out of Tufton Street.

Fermanagh and Omagh council apologise to trans people

  • It was recently reported in the media that Fermanagh and Omagh District council had unilaterally decided to ban trans people from the correct toilets but at their most recent meeting they corrected the record. “Firstly, there has been no decision taken by the Council,” they said at a meeting on Monday. “Our policies are as they always were. I know one news outlet indicated that officers had taken executive decisions on this matter. That is simply not the case. So, our policies remain as they were. We are reviewing our policies in the context of the Supreme Court judgement but crucially in the context of the Equality Commission guidance which we understand will be forthcoming in June and nothing will be done in advance of that.

    “Secondly, our Equality Statement sets out very clearly our priorities to be an open and fully inclusive council. And I suppose the most regret that I would have is that anyone, particularly those from communities that are already fully vulnerable. felt hurt by anything that the council would say. It would be directly contrary to our equality statement to implement procedures or policies that discriminated against anyone and certainly against transgender people.”

Naomi Long response indicates change to NI Legislation is coming

  • In addition to the above, which states that new guidance is expected in Northern Ireland in June, where the Equality Act does not apply, Naomi Long replied to a constituent to say, “The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has indicated that it will be working at pace to review guidance that it issues to public bodies in light of the judgment and make any amendments as necessary. My officials will also consider carefully any potential implications that may flow from the judgment, including the Department’s responsibilities under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the applicable equality legislation in this jurisdiction.”

Petitions

  • A petition calling for trans people to be allowed to self-identify their legal gender has passed the 100,000 threshold and will be debated in the House of Commons on 19 May. Like many, I signed it in anger. I regret that now.

    It is hard to see what good will come of it. A handful of MPs may offer kind or cautious words of support. Most will not. Many will use the debate to say things they would not get away with anywhere else thanks to Parliamentary privilege, knowing the press will amplify every hostile comment, recycle it the next day, and use it to drive more of the same.

    These so-called debates change nothing. They give legitimacy and airtime to views that aim to harm us. For all the supportive soundbites, the overall effect is demoralising and damaging. Petitioning for more of them feels less like strategy and more like self-harm.

    They offer the illusion of action, when in practice they achieve very little. There are better ways to spend that energy. Contact your MP directly, and often. Support fundraisers, volunteer with grassroots groups, and seek out people who understand how systems work and can help direct your efforts more effectively.

The TRANSparency Project

  • Collecting information on the stand of MPs when it comes to trans rights. You can submit details using the link above.

Human Rights Watch calls out Supreme Court ruling

  • Says “court ruling threatens trans people” and that the “judgment opens door for discrimination, segregation, and exclusion.”

Trans Liberation List

AROUND THE WORLD

US Supreme Court allows military ban to stand

  • In what is the first clear sign that the US Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration’s anti-trans laws to stand and what that will entail for the future, they allowed the discriminatory ban on trans people serving in the military. It reasons that trans people's existence as inherently 'dishonest' and 'untrustworthy'.

Trump Cass Report

  • The Trump Administration has released their version of the Cass Report, which cites the discredited UK report almost 150 times. Like the UK version, those involved in producing it have been kept secret. Erin Reed has more on the pseudoscience contained within and, like Cass, the report also pushed conversion therapy.

MEDIA

Kath Viner could be on her way out at the Guardian

  • · There is apparently growing pressure within the Guardian for a union vote of no confidence in editor Kath Viner, who has overseen the slide of the paper into an anti-trans mouthpiece since she was appointed to the role in 2015. If you have noticed more pro-trans content squeezing its way back into the UK and online versions, that might have something to do with Viner’s reported increasing ‘invisibility on the shop floor’ according to the equally anti-trans Private Eye. The Eye also report she has taken to wearing large headphones whenever she leaves her own office. There is talk of handing her a more global editor-in-chief role out of New York which would allow her to avoid having to interact with her own journalists even less.

IPSO seeking people for its investigation panels

  • They write they are, “seeking people with a diverse range of skills and experiences, including candidates with recent senior experience in digital or print news industries, to join its Standards Investigations Panel.” You can find out how to apply here.

Times and Mail owners pay women less

  • Two of the most vocal campaigners for ‘women’s rights pay their female staff less than their male. Shocking, I know. According to the 2024 Gender Pay Gap, NewsUK, who publish the Times pay men 15.8% more than women, while at DMG Media, who own the Mail the gap is 14.3%.

Trump administration signals crackdown on media leaks

  • Popular Information is reporting that the Trump administration is taking a hardline stance against media outlets that publish leaked information. According to a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department "will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies." The publication notes a significant policy shift, with Bondi stating the department may now pursue journalists through “subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants”. She also stated she would personally decide on any actions involving the questioning or arrest of reporters.

Paramount pauses Daily Show civic campaign over political concerns

  • Semafor’s Max Tani reports that Paramount have delayed a Daily Show-branded initiative encouraging viewers to run for office, amid lawsuits from the Trump administration and a pending merger. The program is expected to relaunch with a new, ‘nonpartisan’ partner later this month. Tensions are said to be growing between journalists at CBS News and Paramount management.

Murdoch pushes Harry Cole forward in the US

  • Harry Cole, currently the political editor of The S*n, has been appointed ‘editor-at-large’ for the paper and will now be based in the United States, according to Semafor. As part of his expanded role, he will front a new online evening politics show, write a monthly column for the New York Post, and appear regularly on Fox News. Cole has been an influential figure in Westminster journalism, having previously served as deputy political editor of the Mail on Sunday and Westminster correspondent for The S*n. He also reportedly dated Carrie Johnson, the now-wife of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Goodbye Skype

  • Skype, launched in 2003, officially closed down on 5 May.

SPORT

Pool declares men better than women

  • Trans women will no longer be eligible to compete in the Ultimate Pool Group’s women’s category following the recent Supreme Court ruling which had nothing to do with the sport. The decision comes just two weeks after Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, both trans women, reached the final of the Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series Event 2, an historic moment should be seen as a success for the inclusion of trans athletes in professional sport. Their participation was met by the usual tantrums, resulting in the ban to shut them and their legal threats up.

    Football and cricket in England have also banned trans women with reports filtering through that some mixed kids teams are starting to remove cis girls, as well.

Martina praises Trump, cries about being called a Nazi

  • Despite relentless media attacks as a lesbian athlete in the 1980s, Martina Navratilova continues to do to trans people what was done to her, this time backing Donald Trump’s sweeping bans on trans women in sport. In a Telegraph podcast, she praised the UK Supreme Court ruling defining “woman” as “biological,” called for sex verification tests in tennis, and accused Democrats of failing women. She also complained about being called a ‘Nazi’.

LA Olympics to feature mixed gender events

  • The Los Angeles Olympics 2028 will feature mixed gymnastics, athletics, table tennis, rowing, archery and golf.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

  • After Reform’s massive haul in the English local elections, it took just three days for one of their councillors to be suspended from the party. Huffington Post has the story. Another has since quit because he doesn't have the time to do the work required of a councillor.

  • Deputy Green leader, Zach Polanski, has launched a surprise bid to become leader of the party, which would oust Carla Denyer and the anti-trans Adrian Ramsay as co-leaders. Polanski wants to see the Greens become an ”eco-populism” movement. The Guardian had the Exclusive.

  • Carla Denyer has said she does not intend to run again to become co-leader, instead opting to focus on her role as an MP. The Guardian also had this exclusive.

  • Labour is under scrutiny after football regulator nominee David Kogan admitted donating to Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy’s leadership campaigns. Nandy is currently Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport.

  • Downing Street faces a sexism row after former transport secretary Louise Haigh accused Labour insiders of misogynistic briefings against Bridget Phillipson and Lisa Nandy.

  • When you think how quickly they move when it's trans people and then..."People infected as a result of the contaminated blood scandal and their relatives say they have been re-traumatised by delays to and flaws in the compensation scheme." [Guardian]

WHAT’S ON

Full Parliament business can be viewed here

Monday 12 May

  • Stormont motion: Call to recognise International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia
    o Amendment 1 – Calls to recognise the recent Supreme Court ruling in future policy development

    o Amendment 2 – Calls on the Executive to reverse the puberty blocker ban

  • Opening statements in Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sex trafficking trial.

Tuesday 13 May

  • High Court begins four-day hearing on challenge to UK arms sales to Israel

  • Verdict due in Gérard Depardieu’s sexual assault trial

Wednesday 14 May

  • 12pm, House of Commons, Prime Minister’s Questions

  • 2pm, Women’s and Equalities Committee, Health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures - Oral evidence

Thursday 15 May

  • Report: Forbes highest-earning athletes – how many will be women?

Friday 16 May

  • Jeffrey Donaldson in court on sexual offences charges

  • Welsh Conservative Party Conference

  • Gatwick Airport staff strike action begins

Saturday 17 May

  • International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

  • Trans Rights protest, Belfast, 12.30pm, Writer’s Square

  • Trans Rights protest, Cheltenham

  • Trans Rights protest, Sheffield, 2.30pm, Winter Garden

  • Trans Rights protest, Southend, 11am, Pier Hill

  • Trans Rights protest, Ipswich, 1pm, Ipswich Town Hall

  • All protests can be viewed here

Sunday 18 May

  • Romanian presidential election run-off – Far-right George Simion of Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), won the first round with a frightening 41%.

THE PAPERS

As you’ll notice, there are no clips this week. I’ve decided to publish those in a standalone post on the 5th of the month to allow time to collect them without needing to do it daily.

After two weeks off following the Supreme Court ruling, during which the papers lost their minds more than usual, I’m still catching up. Things have calmed somewhat.

The Observer, now under the Tortoise banner following a change of ownership at the end of April, is already on its third edition. Aside from their debut issue, which included a piece they no doubt believed to be ‘balanced,’ the paper has not returned to the topic. With leading anti-trans voice Sonia Sodha no longer on staff, perhaps it will stay that way.

The Guardian also appears to be undergoing a shift in tone since the split. It may not last, but at present, the paper’s output has moved from loud dog whistles to straight reporting, which is a significant change. Libby Brooks is doing most of the work and she does not provide space for TERFs to push their distorted view of reality. This week, The Guardian ran four articles on trans issues, none of which were negative. Headlines included:

  • “Sturgeon warns court ruling risks making trans lives ‘impossibly difficult’”

  • “MPs seek EHRC assurances over ruling on gender”

  • “Pentagon to remove up to 1,000 trans troops from US military under new ban”

  • “Transgender councillor quits Labour over ‘denial of basic rights’”

Long may it continue, although the damage has already been done.

The Mail published just five articles attacking trans people this week, some of which were especially vicious. The worst, a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday, was a hit piece by a nurse from Darlington who used her experience of childhood abuse to misgender a trans nurse without consequence. The article speculated about the trans woman’s genitals, her relationship with her wife, and their plans to have a child. It was cruel, dehumanising and grotesque, and it reduced serious abuse suffered by the cis nurse to a tool for attacking someone else. If she were not crying about a trans person, the Mail would not care about her trauma. In fact, if given the chance, they would likely print a column defending her father.

The Times printed three articles, all of which were relatively mild.

It was, unsurprisingly, The Telegraph that led the week with nine articles, although they took two days off midweek. Even so, that is fewer than the 11 articles they published the day after the Supreme Court ruling.

In total, there were 21 articles about trans people this week. Seventeen of them were attacks.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: Supreme Court ruling sends papers into a frenzy]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-supreme-court-rulinghttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-supreme-court-rulingSun, 20 Apr 2025 12:36:06 GMTThe Trans Agenda

Support The Trans Agenda via PayPal

[20 April 2025]

One year ago, almost to the day, I had an idea. What if I stopped clipping articles at random and instead began collecting them in a more structured way? Thus, The Trans Agenda was born. This past week, I passed a full year of tracking how many articles appeared in each publication. You should have been able to read about that milestone in more detail in another post, but I haven’t quite finished it yet because, like every trans person I know, this week hit me like a train.

There is, of course, one story dominating The Trans Agenda in the UK right now: the appallingly bigoted ruling from the Supreme Court, which defines a person by biological sex. The judgment reads as though it were written by Sex Matters, and, indeed, they contributed to it significantly. No trans people were allowed to, however.

The gloating from the media and gender-critical figures in response to this ruling has been as vicious as the judgment itself is compromised. How can justice claim to speak in its own name when it explicitly excludes the minority it is set to impact, while eagerly accepting submissions from groups whose only purpose is to target that same minority? I will never understand.

In the wake of the ruling, gender-critical activists and their allies in the press have moved swiftly to pressure institutions into adopting their interpretation of the decision. Their urgency is telling. They are, as usual, aware that much of what they are saying does not stand up to scrutiny, but they are banking on intimidation and confusion to prevent others from realising it.

Due to the ruling this week and how much I’ve had to do, I had to cut a few sections but they will be back next week as usual.

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

UK & IRELAND NEWS

For Women Scotland verdict shocks everyone who isn’t a bigot [QueerAF]

  • The UK Supreme Court has ruled that under the Equality Act 2010, the legal definition of sex refers exclusively to biological sex, effectively excluding trans people from legal recognition as their true gender. The judgment allows trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces regardless of circumstance, significantly weakening existing protections. It also removes equal pay rights for trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates. The ruling relied heavily on submissions from gender-critical groups and excluded trans voices entirely. It enforces a legal limbo on trans people, contradicts European human rights law, and aims to erode our ability to participate in public life. I encourage you to read Jess O’Thomson’s coverage, linked above in the header, for a much better explainer.

Further reading

The overwhelming coverage of this, as you’d expect, has come from cis people who hate us. But, there are many brilliant trans writers out there working their arses off to bring clarity to a frightened community.

These are some of the best pieces you might have missed:

Please tag me on Bluesky with others you have seen.

Thousands turn out across UK to support trans rights

  • Protests broke out across the UK over the weekend in defence of trans rights, with the largest taking place in London, drawing an estimated 25,000 people, not that you would know that from the lack of media coverage.

    That number deserves a moment of reflection, especially considering it came just days after the Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday. Now, compare it to the largest gender-critical demonstration you’ve ever seen, one planned for months in advance. They can only dream of such numbers. Their power lies not in popular support, but in access. Their support comes from elite institutions, the media, and political networks. Ours comes from the people. Even those who do not actively support trans rights largely believe we should be left alone.

    That is why we will win. The challenge is to survive and resist the damage they are determined to do in the meantime.

Labour Ministers co-ordinate response to protect trans rights

  • Following the UK Supreme Court ruling, leaked WhatsApp messages show Labour ministers privately discussing how to protect trans rights and counteract the judgment’s impact, according to the Mail on Sunday.

    The ruling has been interpreted by some officials, including the EHRC chair Baroness Falkner, as justifying the exclusion of trans women from single-sex spaces and sports. Labour MPs, including Dame Angela Eagle and Sir Chris Bryant, expressed concern over how public bodies might overreact to the decision and agreed to meet to coordinate a response. Eagle emphasised continuing with Labour’s manifesto promises to protect gender identity and LGBTQ+ rights. Bless.

Wes Streeting’s office ‘egged’

Questions grow over withheld trans suicide data by NHS England and Wes Streeting

  • Jolyon Maugham has accused NHS England and Health Secretary Wes Streeting of politically motivated delays in releasing completed suicide data on trans youth. A 2024 analysis by the National Child Mortality Database was finished over a year ago, yet NHS England says it won’t be published until 2026. The delay, Maugham argues, prevents progress on suicide prevention and shields Streeting from political fallout, despite the lives at stake.

Petitions

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

SPORT

UK ice hockey clubs challenge new gender participation policy [source]

  • Six UK ice hockey clubs, including Streatham Storm and Caledonia Steel Queens, have issued a joint statement challenging the newly published Sex and Gender Participation Policy from Ice Hockey UK. The clubs raise “a number of concerns over the policy’s implications, design, implementation and legal permissibility,” and have formally requested an urgent meeting with Ice Hockey UK and England Ice Hockey. The statement is also signed by the Cambridge Kodiaks, Haringey Greyhounds, Lee Valley Vampires, and Solent Amazons and Valkyries.

Athletes to sue England Hockey over new participation ban [Pink News]

  • Three trans players will launch a legal challenge against England Hockey’s decision to exclude trans women and non-binary players from female teams. The new policy, effective from 1 September, places them in an "open" category, replacing the men's league. The rule is clearly discriminatory and unsupported by evidence. Legal experts say the case could set a UK precedent.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here.

Tuesday 22 April

  • Report: Tesla results

Wednesday 23 April

  • Prime Minister’s Questions, House of Commons, 12pm

  • Sentencing of man who attempted to murder Salman Rushdie

  • 20th anniversary of first YouTube clip being posted

Thursday 24 April

  • Westminster Hall debate, Lesbian Visibility Week, 1.30pm

  • Keir Starmer meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen

  • Ofcom Protection of Children Codes guidance published

Friday 26 April

  • Former Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson in court on bribery charges.

Saturday 26 April

  • Just Stop Oil stage final action in London

  • White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

  • World’s first sperm racing competition in Los Angeles

Sunday 27 April

  • Report due on Trump executive order on DEI programs in military

THE PAPERS

Well, that was a week, huh? In the year that I’ve been tracking the papers, there hasn’t been one like it for coverage in terms of numbers and there were even some months that had fewer. It was, in short, brutal.

As a result of the sheer volume, I have not read every piece and therefore not noted who was quoted. It looked to be mostly the same people over and over and over again.

So, what do you want first, the last year’s totals, or the week? Let’s do the year.

On 15 April, I finished a full year of tracking these papers. At the start I merely recorded numbers, so the data is a bit basic. Since the start of 2025 I have been recording bylines, sentiment, front pages and the GCs quoted, so more in-depth data will be along when I’ve got some more. I’ve also added Northern Ireland’s News Letter to my list since the start of the year.

Over the course of the first year of tracking there were 1,075 articles printed in the papers I monitor and I don’t remember a trans byline on any of them.

This breaks down as:

  • Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph 478

  • Times/Sunday Times 262

  • Mail/Mail on Sunday 256

  • Guardian/Observer 79

Over the course of the last week there were 79 articles printed, one of which had five bylines.

On Thursday, the day after the ruling, there were 28 in total with the Telegraph printing 11 of them.

The Telegraph, in total, printed 25, the Mail 22, Times 19 and Guardian/Observer 13, one of which was a full page covering the protests at the weekend which didn’t even quote a GC for balance. Instead, they printed two anti-trans opinion pieces.

This is the last edition of the Observer that will be printed under the Guardian’s banner and, you will all be delighted to know, Sonia Sodha managed to squeeze out her one column for the last time.

I knew she could do it!

Whose bylines were on all these articles? Aidan Radnedge, Albert Tait, Alyson Rudd, Amelia Gentleman, Amy Gibbons (2), Andrew Billen, Andrew Gregory, Aubrey Allegretti, Ben Rumsby, Blower, Cameron Charles, Caroline Davies (2), cartoonist, comment (5), Daisy Eastlake, Daniel Martin (3), Daniel Sanderson, Debbie Hayton, Dominc Hauschild, Elizabeth Haigh, Ethan Croft (2), Fiona Parker, Freya Barnes, Geraldine Scott (2), Gerladine Scott, Glen Owen (2), Hadley Freeman (2), Harriet Line (3), Harry Yorke, Hayley Dixon (3), Jacinta Taylor, Jack Hardy, Jada Bas, James Tapper, Janet Eastham (5), Janice Turner (2), Jessica Murray, Jo Phoenix, Joe Phoenix, Jonathan Ames, Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, Kemi Badenoch, letters, Libby Brooks (3), Liz Hull, Lottie Hayton, Martin Evans, Michael Searles, Oliver Brown, Patrick Sawer, Paul Goodman, Peter Walker, Phoebe Hennell, Poppy Wood, Rajeev Syal, Rosamund Urwin, Ruth Hallows (2), Sam Merriman (5), Samuel Montgomery (2), Sanchez Manning (6), Sarah Vine, Severin Carrell (6), Shaun Wooller, Sonia Sodha, Suzanne Moore, Telegraph reporters (2), Tom Morgan, William Turvill.

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 14 April - Sunday 20 April

All article text is in the alt text. If it is not there, it is because the article text is in the image above.

Monday Total: 2

Daily Mail [1]
Mother banned from daughter’s primary af ter complaint over trans lessons Daily Mail14 Apr 2025By Jack Hardy Dispute: Sunnyside Spencer Academy A MOTHER has been barred from her daughter’s primary school after complaining that children as young as nine were having their ‘transgender identity’ affirmed by teachers. Karina Conway, 42, claimed the school taught 11-year-olds that ‘transgender identity’ was a protected characteristic in law, even though the Equality Act makes no mention of it. The mother of two was ordered to stay away from the playground at Sunnyside Spencer Academy in Beeston, Nottingham, for eight months in September 2024. She was then told she could return only if she didn’t criticise the school online, The Telegraph reported. In 2023, teachers called police when Ms Conway and women’s rights activist Kellie-Jay Keen staged a protest outside the school, which is run by the Spencer Academies Trust. Ms Conway told The Sunday Telegraph: ‘This trust is silencing ‘Teachers feel nervous’ the voices of parents who know sex is real and when it matters, it really matters.’ She was said to have first raised a complaint when she learnt that the school had allegedly taught pupils that transgender identity was a protected characteristic. The Equality Act does not reference the disputed idea of gender identity, instead stating that a person must not be discriminated against because of ‘gender reassignment’. Ms Conway claimed the school had accepted some shortcomings in the teaching of the subject in correspondence to her, which recognised factual errors relating to the Equality Act. But it then said its lawyers would get involved if she continued to make contact about it. ‘I cannot understand why they think they can attempt to intimidate parents in this way,’ Ms Conway said. In June 2023, the year before the ban, an Ofsted inspection took place and she expressed her concerns to an inspector. She then made a subject access request to Ofsted, which acknowledged that a call had taken place with the head teacher prior to the inspection in which the school described Ms Conway as a parent who ‘does not want her child to be exposed to gender identity and has transphobic views’. She said this month the trust had told her it would lift the ban if she informed the school in advance of anything she was attending so ‘staff can feel prepared’. It said teachers ‘feel nervous interacting with you’. The school and trust did not reply to requests to comment. Article Name:Mother banned from daughter’s primary af ter complaint over trans lessons Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Jack Hardy Start Page:23 End Page:23
Telegraph [1]
GPS pressured ‘to prescribe trans drugs by rogue clinics’ NHS issues new guidance telling family doctors to refuse requests for puberty blockers for under-18s The Daily Telegraph14 Apr 2025By Michael Searles and Patrick Sawer TRANS activists and unregulated clinics are pressuring GPS into illegally prescribing puberty blockers, the NHS has said. Health leaders issued new guidance to GPS that orders them to stop prescribing trans drugs to children, after requests for clarification from doctors. GPS have been told that they “must refuse” requests to prescribe puberty blockers because it is a criminal offence and should refuse cross-sex hormone requests to children unless carefully considered. It is understood a number of GPS have felt pressured into prescribing the drugs to children or entering agreements to supply the drugs on behalf of transgender clinics. ‘This advice will give GPS much-needed support to refuse [to prescribe] in the interests of patient safety’ The NHS guidance specifically singles out two unregulated clinics to be avoided – Gendergp and Anne Transgender Healthcare Ltd – both of which have “published statements that oppose the restrictions that have been put in place” by the NHS and the Government. There is no suggestion either organisation has broken any laws. The clarification comes after The Telegraph disclosed GPS’ fears that they are caught in a battle over a condition they are not trained to treat. The guidance empowers GPS to turn away requests to prescribe the drugs to under 18s. Previously, GPS would enter “sharedcare agreements” and continue a regular prescription for a child taking the drugs after they had initially been given them by a transgender clinic. Last month, the Royal College of GPS updated its “position statement” to argue that the profession should not be prescribing gender-affirming hormones to anyone under 18 because they did not have the specialist skills needed for this group of patients. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, announced last year that a Uk-wide ban on puberty blockers would be made indefinite, outside of a clinical trial, although crosssex drugs are still available to 16 and 17-year-olds. The guidance from the NHS tells doctors they “must refuse” to prescribe puberty blockers to under-18s to treat gender dysphoria. It also states that “a GP should refuse to support an unregulated provider in the prescribing or supply of alternative medications that may be used to suppress pubertal development”. Regulated clinics are limited to those registered by a UK regulator, such as the Care Quality Commission and does not include any based abroad or online. The guidance stops short of telling GPS not to prescribe cross-sex hormones at all. The NHS says they should not be used in children under 16 but has resisted calls for a ban for under-18s. Dr Louise Irvine, a GP and co-chairman of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, said, “the advice will give GPS much-needed support to refuse in the interests of patient safety”, but added that it did “not go far enough” and that some GPS are “operating outside NHS prescribing protocols”. The NHS said advice issued to pharmacists recently by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPC) was “equally relevant to GPS who are asked to agree a shared care arrangement”. The GPC had said: “It is not enough for a prescription to be legally valid; that is just one consideration alongside others, including judgement as to whether a prescription is clinically appropriate.” The Cass Review, led by paediatrician Baroness Cass, said cross-sex hormones should not be given to under-16s and only ever prescribed for 16 and 17-year-olds when the “clinician… can demonstrate extreme caution”. It comes amid various legal challenges attempting to ban the use of cross-sex drugs in children, including one led by Kiera Bell, a de-transitioner who regretted trans surgery. An NHS spokesman said: “In response to concerns put to NHS England by GPS about named unregulated providers who arrange for puberty blockers, hormone drugs and other medications to be given to children for gender incongruence, contrary to NHS policy, NHS England has advised GPS not to cooperate in this unsafe practice.” Article Name:GPS pressured ‘to prescribe trans drugs by rogue clinics’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Michael Searles and Patrick Sawer Start Page:6 End Page:6

Tuesday Total: 1

Daily Mail [1]
Single-sex spaces to be protected in major law overhaul Daily Mail15 Apr 2025By Jada Bas WOMEN-ONLY spaces will be protected in a government overhaul of equality law. Transgender people will be made to present Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC) and organisations will be compelled to define the difference between sex and gender under the planned changes. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) fears current guidelines have been loosely interpreted as hundreds of public organisations have been allowing self-identifying trans people into single-sex spaces. The human rights watchdog is now pushing for a radical overhaul of the Statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations to the Government. The body submitted a 310-page revised version of its code to reflect its growing concerns, saying it is ‘out of date’. It is being reviewed by government lawyers and ministers in a bid to present it to Parliament before the end of summer. The new code aims to protect biological sex over gender identity as far as possible. It is said the protections will be heavily based on the outcome of the Maya Forstater case – where a 2021 employment tribunal ruled the belief that trans women are not real women must be protected. Ms Forstater was sacked from her job after sharing gender critical views on X. The tribunal ruling set a legal precedent as it said her belief was protected under the Equality Act. A government source told The Daily Telegraph ‘it will transform the weather’ on sex and gender. Meanwhile a landmark Supreme Court case could also update the code on Wednesday when it is set to rule. The appeal by For Women Scotland argues sex-based protections for women should only be afforded to those born female. Article Name:Single-sex spaces to be protected in major law overhaul Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Jada Bas Start Page:22 End Page:22

Wednesday Total: 2

The Guardian [2]

Thursday Total: 28

The Guardian [3]
Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’ Supreme court ruling may have far-reaching impact on trans rights The Guardian17 Apr 2025Severin Carrell Scotland editor PHOTOGRAPH: ANDY RAIN/EPA ▲ Gender-critical campaigners celebrating outside the supreme court in London after the ruling was handed down The supreme court issued a historic and definitive ruling yesterday that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and biological sex. In a decision that delighted gender-critical activists, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the 2010 legislation did not include transgender women who held gender recognition certificates (GRCs). The judgment could have farreaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten. The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who ran hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges. A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.” The case was brought to court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female. Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as womenonly charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said. However, the judgment said trans women still had equal pay rights as women and could enjoy rights to be treated as women in some situations. In the 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”. If “sex” did not mean only biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said. The justices added: “If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men … “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.” The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women. Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said that his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people. “We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.” The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. The Scottish government also said that it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved in the case was passed by Westminster. Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision. The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates. “We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.” Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK – which had joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case – said the decision was “clearly disappointing”. He added: “There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment. “The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.” Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”, adding: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex. “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the supreme court for this ruling.” In a social media post, Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the supreme court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.” Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position ‘The provisions relating to singlesex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex’ Supreme court ruling taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups” and this would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential. And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered discrimination and abuse. Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces but would need time to fully understand its implications. “We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.” Article Name:Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Severin Carrell Scotland editor Start Page:1 End Page:1
Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’ Supreme court ruling may have far-reaching impact on trans rights The Guardian17 Apr 2025Severin Carrell Scotland editor PHOTOGRAPH: ANDY RAIN/EPA ▲ Gender-critical campaigners celebrating outside the supreme court in London after the ruling was handed down The supreme court issued a historic and definitive ruling yesterday that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and biological sex. In a decision that delighted gender-critical activists, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the 2010 legislation did not include transgender women who held gender recognition certificates (GRCs). The judgment could have farreaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten. The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who ran hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges. A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.” The case was brought to court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female. Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as womenonly charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said. However, the judgment said trans women still had equal pay rights as women and could enjoy rights to be treated as women in some situations. In the 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”. If “sex” did not mean only biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said. The justices added: “If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men … “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.” The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women. Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said that his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people. “We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.” The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. The Scottish government also said that it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved in the case was passed by Westminster. Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision. The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates. “We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.” Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK – which had joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case – said the decision was “clearly disappointing”. He added: “There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment. “The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.” Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”, adding: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex. “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the supreme court for this ruling.” In a social media post, Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the supreme court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.” Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position ‘The provisions relating to singlesex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex’ Supreme court ruling taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups” and this would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential. And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered discrimination and abuse. Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces but would need time to fully understand its implications. “We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.” Article Name:Legal definition of woman ‘is based on biological sex’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Severin Carrell Scotland editor Start Page:4 End Page:4
‘Real issues now start’ New battle lines formed as judgment sinks in The Guardian17 Apr 2025Jessica Murray Social affairs correspondent PHOTOGRAPH: TAYFUN SALCI/SHUTTERSTOCK ▲ Susan Smith and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland. Smith said the judgment ‘felt like a massive relief ’ For gender-critical campaigners, the supreme court’s ruling on the definition of a woman in the Equality Act was a “huge reset” that left them feeling “vindicated and relieved”. For transgender rights campaigners, it was a “damaging attack on their rights”, signalling the start of “real issues” in their fight for legal recognition. “I think this will be the kicking off point for a very enhanced push for overt restrictions on the rights of trans people,” said Victoria McCloud, Britain’s first transgender judge. She applied as an intervener in the supreme court appeal but was refused. Last year, she quit her job as a judge, saying her position had become “untenable” because her trans identity was viewed as a “lifestyle choice or an ideology”. She now lives in Ireland. McCloud said the supreme court ruling came during “a scary time” for transgender people in Britain, and would mark the start of a more intense fight for rights. “The rest has been phoney war. The real issues now start,” she said. “If I was a trans person in the UK today, I would steer clear of using any loo in a public space unless it was a single-sex or combined-sex loo, because I personally cannot, as of this moment, judge whether I should use the male loo or the female loo,” she said. “I haven’t got my head around the complexities of the judgment, and its repercussions will be ongoing for some time. But I’m happy I live in the Republic of Ireland where this is not an issue. They know where I’m allowed to pee here.” Outside the supreme court on Wednesday morning, Susan Smith, a co-director of the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought the appeal, was one of several women jubilantly celebrating the result. “It was quite something to walk out into banks of photographers and loads of people cheering and clapping. It was very emotional,” she said. “We’ve all given up a lot to fight this and we’ve all had to put up with a lot of abuse, a lot of misrepresentation of our motives and our position and our beliefs. “We’ve finally got clarity on the law, and we know now that when spaces and services are provided under the Equality Act and they’re single-sex, it means exactly that. That feels like a massive relief.” Smith said the ruling would help women feel safe if there was a man in a female-only space – “they will know that they are well within their rights to object to that”. “Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and it is still protected,” she said. “But saying that women were just some amorphous collection of people and it was an identity anyone could have, it was really downplaying the very real and different issues that affect men and women.” Maya Forstater, who founded the campaign group Sex Matters after she won an employment tribunal that found she had been unfairly discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs, said the ruling brought “relief, vindication, happiness and pride”. “This judgment has been so clear and it’s from the highest court in the land,” she said. “There are dozens and dozens of women who have had to bring employment tribunal cases because they’ve been victimised for just saying what they think the law says. Now we know that we were right.” She said the judgment was about “recognising rules and reality”. “If you’re a man, you can call yourself what you like, you can dress how you like, but you cannot work in a rape crisis centre, you cannot go into a women’s changing room,” she said. McCloud said she shared concerns about protecting women’s spaces – “I don’t want men in the women’s loos myself, thank you”. But she said people with extreme views “regard someone like me as dangerous” simply because of her transgender identity. “Gender-critical ideology is on the ascendancy, and this is obviously a success for them,” McCloud said. “But the struggle starts now, both for them and for us, because they are going to want to enhance this success and we are going to want to clarify and protect the rights that we thought we had.” Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman and activist for the Scottish Greens, said she was “gutted” when she saw the news and described it as “yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace”. She said: “This will only impact trans people who have got a gender recognition certificate, which actually the vast majority of trans people don’t. But I don’t want to underplay how damaging it is. “It sets the idea that even if you jump through all of the hoops, you go through that dehumanising and stigmatising process to get a [gender recognition certificate], you’ll still never be recognised in law for who you truly are.” She added: “Some individuals and organisations will see this result and use it as justification or vindication to discriminate further against trans people and that makes me really worried for my community.” Article Name:‘Real issues now start’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Jessica Murray Social affairs correspondent Start Page:5 End Page:5Politicians may be breathing a sigh of relief as clear ruling lets them dodge difficult questions The Guardian17 Apr 2025Peter Walker and Severin Carrell For all the negative stereotypes, many politicians are thoughtful, diligent and caring. But they are also human, and it is their more self-serving instincts that may have caused some to breathe a sigh of relief at the supreme court ruling on gender recognition. After a challenge by the gender-critical group For Women Scotland – which started out as a dispute over Scottish government legislation about female representation on public boards – judges ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological women and biological sex. The verdict will be heavily contested, and could bring serious and perhaps unforeseen repercussions for transgender women. But such an unexpectedly definitive view allows leaders in both Scotland and Westminster to (and there is no gentle way of putting this) dodge responsibility over one of the most contentious and toxic debates of our age. The Scottish government’s response was particularly eloquent. While stressing that no one should see the ruling as cause for triumph, it otherwise talked blandly about “engaging with the UK government to understand the full implication of this ruling”. There is logic to this. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act, the legislative focus of the deliberations, are both UK-wide and thus not something the Holyrood administration can decide unilaterally. But beneath this reassuring constitutional hum lurks the sound of quiet footsteps, as the SNP’s first minister, John Swinney, shuffles his party away from an era when Nicola Sturgeon’s government was very proudly at the vanguard of transgender rights. It is little more than two years ago that Sturgeon’s government was openly seeking a battle with Westminster over a plan to make it easier for transgender people in Scotland to get gender recognition certificates – a move blocked by Rishi Sunak. We are in a very different political climate now, and not just with the open hostility of the Donald Trump administration, which is purging transgender people from the military on the stated basis that their very identity makes them unfit to serve. Scotland’s government has been on the receiving end of pushback from other controversies – for example, the decision to initially send Isla Bryson, a transgender woman convicted of double rape, to a women’s prison. To yet again frame it in slightly unpalatable political terms, this is no longer seen as a vote-winner for the SNP. For Keir Starmer and the Westminster administration, there had been an unspoken worry about a fudged or unclear court ruling, one that placed the impetus on politicians to decide. Instead, as a UK government spokesperson said, it gave “clarity and confidence”, both for women and for those who run single-sex spaces. Clarity and confidence, perhaps. Political cover? Most definitely. Starmer has spent his five years as Labour leader having TV and radio interviewers intermittently ask him to declare, yes or no, whether a woman can have a penis. Starmer’s standard dual response – under the law a tiny number of trans people are recognised as women but might not have completed gender reassignment surgery – prompted an inevitable and arguably damaging wave of attacks from political opponents. Kemi Badenoch has been relentless in this, despite having served as equalities minister in a government that did not amend or clarify the Equality Act to reflect her view that, as she tweeted on Wednesday, “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact”. This was not just a Conservative obsession. Starmer faced criticism from inside Labour– notably from the now-independent MP Rosie Duffield for, as she saw it, failing to stand up for women – as well as reproach from others who felt he was edging away from trans rights. From a nakedly political-management perspective, the court decision was ideal, making the decision judicial rather than political. No 10 officials believe there will be no need to tweak the Equality Act, leaving their role as little more than a neutral voice in helping organisations adjust to the new reality. Starmer’s aides deny he has been on a political journey from a few years ago, when as Labour leadership candidate he signed up to a pledge from the LGBT Labour group “that trans women are women, that trans men are men”, or 18 months later when he criticised Duffield for saying that only women could have a cervix. This is perhaps disingenuous. But in a debate where niceties and nuance are so often trampled on, Starmer is very much not the first politician to try to fudge things. Article Name:Politicians may be breathing a sigh of relief as clear ruling lets them dodge difficult questions Publication:The Guardian Author:Peter Walker and Severin Carrell Start Page:5 End Page:5
The Times [7]
Landmark ruling to affect work, sport, the NHS and education Sanchez Manning Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder, centre, of the For Women Scotland campaign group, celebrate after the success of their long battle to show that only biological women can legally be women Next image › The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of “woman” relies on biological sex. The decision has wide-ranging implications, from maternity care to competitive sport. SINGLE-SEX SERVICES The sex-based rights campaign group Sex Matters said that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission would be able to produce much “clearer, simpler” guidance on single-sex services as a result of the judgment. Naomi Cunningham, barrister and chairwoman of Sex Matters, said: “It is now clear that in any situation in which it is lawful to operate a single-sex or separate-sex service for women, it is not merely lawful but compulsory to exclude all men. “And ‘men’ for these purposes includes trans women, whether or not they hold gender recognition certificates [GRCs — a legal document that recognises an individual’s gender]. The same is true in reverse of single-sex or separate-sex services for men.” Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at the law firm Irwin Mitchell, agreed that the decision would make it easier for employers to understand the rules on providing single-sex and separate-sex services. She said: “Ultimately this decision gives employers much needed legal certainty and will help them to make legally compliant decisions.” CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS Equally, Sex Matters believes that the judgment will allow single-sex clubs and associations to operate clearly and lawfully. Cunningham, who specialises in employment and discrimination law, said: “The judgment confirms that singlesex associations are lawful and must exclude everyone of the opposite sex whether or not they hold a GRC.” Bev Jackson, co-founder of LGB Alliance, said the ruling removed “any semblance” of doubt about whether men could enter women’s spaces and groups. She said: “The legal definition of ‘woman’ is clear now. This means that any club, association or other group of any size — for example, a lesbian social club — can now legally operate on a single-sex basis.” SEX DISCRIMINATION Sex Matters said that in the wake of the judgment “the comparators in sex discrimination will be clear” and the “definition of sexual orientation will make sense”. Moseley said that the potential impact was best explained using the example of a current tribunal — Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton. In this case a female nurse objected to a biologically male doctor, who identified as female, using the female changing rooms and is suing her employer for sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief and indirect sex discrimination. Explaining how the judgment could affect this dispute, Moseley said: “The NHS’s arguments that the correct comparator for the indirect sex discrimination claim should be a woman — rather than a man — will no longer hold water. “The question in that case is how a biological man using the female changing rooms would be treated, not how another woman would be treated.” COMPETITIVE SPORT Campaigners for single-sex sport said that the judgment had made it “crystal clear” that males who identified as female — with or without a GRC — were not permitted in women’s sports. Su Wong, from Seen in Sport, said: “This applies to all women and girls, not just at elite level, so this should mark the end of ‘two-tier’ sports policies. This ruling means that women will no longer be sanctioned and punished if they raise concerns that there is a male in the female category.” DATA COLLECTION The legal opinion is that organisations will now be more likely to collect data on biological sex rather than “gender”, without fearing that this is unlawful. Professor Alice Sullivan, who recently led a review for the government of data on sex and gender, said: “The judgment provides absolute clarity for organisations collecting data to fulfil their public sector equality duty that they must collect data on biological sex.” SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES Sarah Phillimore, a barrister who has represented clients in a number of gender-critical legal cases, said that one important effect of the ruling would be that it would allow single sex schools to have a clear admissions policy. PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY Milli Hill, a childbirth campaigner and author, said that the ruling would help clarify women’s maternity rights. She said: “I think the judgment will make clear, for example, that pregnant women are entitled to care from a biological female not a male person with a GRC.” EQUAL PAY According to Sex Matters, in lieu of the judgment equal pay rules will now specifically track biological sex. Cunningham said: “The judgment means that employers can’t skew their gender pay gap figures by including some high-earning trans-identifying men as ‘women’, even if they have GRCs. It also means that a female employee can claim equal pay by reference to a higher-paid male comparator even if he has a GRC.” SEX-SPECIFIC EMPLOYMENT Legal experts said that the judgment would make it clearer and simpler for employers to advertise roles for people of one particular sex when that was a requirement of the job. Moseley said that the ruling would help remove the ambiguity of whether employers can exclude men, who identify as women with a GRC, from a list of candidates they wish to hire.
A political cartoon published in The Times on 17 April 2025 comments on the UK Supreme Court's ruling in the For Women Scotland case regarding legal definitions of sex and gender. The cartoon depicts a senior British judge in full ceremonial robes and white wig, holding a human skull in the manner of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Sanity Restored The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that the description ‘woman’ should be based on biological sex is a victory for truth over faddish, destructive radicalism After years of argument, ideological extremism and an outbreak of collective insanity across the public sector and in corporate boardrooms, the Supreme Court has finally proclaimed that a woman is an adult human female, and references to “sex” and “women” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex and biological women. The judgment, which the loudest and most unpleasant voices in this long-running campaign of misinformation against British feminists insisted would never come, was unanimous. All five justices agreed what millions of people know instinctively to be true: that biological sex, not the expression of a subjective gender identity, is the only meaningful qualification to womanhood. Such an elementary truth should never have been contested before the highest court. That it was — in a bitter dispute between the self-styled progressives of Scotland’s nationalist government and the women who dared to defy them — is testament to a political and cultural establishment that lost touch with reality. It was always absurd that the SNP, much of the Labour Party, prominent Conservatives and countless public bodies and universities insisted that men were able to simply speak themselves into female-only spaces, some of which women fought for years to establish. Redress and an end to the fear of persecution is finally coming for women who wish to protect their right to play sports against one another, and support victims of rape or male violence. Or in the case of lesbian groups specifically mentioned by the Supreme Court, gather together safe from discrimination. Until now these women were at risk of legal action by trans-identifying men citing the Equality Act, which the Scottish government insisted should treat the “sex” of a biological woman and a biological man armed with a gender recognition certificate as the same thing. That can never be the case, and women who lost their livelihoods and reputations in pointing out this scientific certainty should not have suffered for saying so. Women like Kathleen Stock, the academic hounded out of Sussex University, or Maya Forstater, sacked from a think tank for her gendercritical views, were failed by political cowardice. Trans people are a tiny minority in Britain but, like all minorities, they have the right to be treated with respect and compassion, and to live peacefully, free from discrimination. Indeed, gender reassignment is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Their cause was hijacked by those who sought to erode the rights of women by equating gender expression with the immutable facts of nature. Politicians, always susceptible to faddish radicalism, were willing dupes. So it came to pass that in 2021 Sir Keir Starmer, now prime minister, rebuked the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield for daring to say that only a woman could have a cervix. David Lammy, now foreign secretary, accused feminists challenging trans extremism of being “dinosaurs”. And Nicola Sturgeon’s political career was hastened to its end by her defence of the presence of a male rapist in a women’s prison. Thankfully, Sir Keir has abandoned these absurdities. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, has also apologised for telling women to “get over” their objections. Not before time. Hopefully, the ruling will bring an end to this bizarre culture war. Now is not the time for triumphalism or gloating but consensus around two truths: that trans people have the right to live their lives in dignity and that women’s rights are sacrosanct also. To that end ministers must now amend the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 which only perpetuates the misconception that a piece of paper can alter the facts of life. Public institutions and universities must now be held to account if they ignore the law. Women should never have had to fight this battle in defence of scientific truth. But at least it is now won. Sanity is restored.
Daily Mail [7]
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE As judges rule that women ARE defined by biological sex, will Labour finally act to protect their rights? Daily Mail17 Apr 2025By Sam Merriman and Harriet Line Campaigners: Susan Smith and Marion Calder outside the Supreme Court yesterday LABOUR was under intense pressure to protect single-sex spaces last night following a landmark ruling that transgender women are not legally women. Women’s rights groups and MPs celebrated the ‘victory for common sense’ and called on the Government to ensure that activist managers and civil servants abided by the ruling. It is hoped the Supreme Court judgment will lead to a pulping of protrans guidance in the likes of the NHS, police and women’s prisons. The ruling has sweeping implications for public bodies and businesses as the Equality and Human Rights Commission last night said it will ‘work at pace’ to amend workplace guidance. Governing sports bodies, including the Football Association and England and Wales Cricket Board, have also been warned the judgment opens the door to potential lawsuits from female athletes who have found themselves playing against competitors born male. The NHS was one of the first organisations to acknowledge the judgment last night, saying it would reconsider its same-sex ward policies, which currently allow self-identifying trans women to stay on single-sex female wards. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed the ‘victory for women’ but warned that Labour has ‘bent the knee’ to gender ideology. ‘Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either,’ she said, adding: ‘The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end.’ Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies led calls from athletes demanding that women’s sports are for women only, saying: ‘Give back our women’s sport, free from any and all males.’ Harry Potter author JK Rowling, who donated to the seven-year court fight by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), added: ‘Spare a thought today for the UK employers, government departments, health boards, academic institutions and sporting bodies who’ve been breaking equality law to appease activist groups. So many HR manuals to pulp. So many out-of-court settlements to pay.’ In an 88-page ruling yesterday, the justices said: ‘The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.’ The judgment added that the definition of woman ‘makes clear that the concept of sex is binary – a person is either a woman or a man’ and that any other interpretation would be ‘incoherent and impracticable’. The decision is the culmination of FWS’s battle against the Scottish government over whether trans women can be regarded as female for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The case tested whether somebody with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), recognising their gender as female, should be legally treated as a woman. With its ruling, the UK’s highest court decided that the process of awarding a GRC does not turn a man into a woman for ‘all purposes’, meaning they do not also get specific protections for biological women contained in the Equality Act. Maya Forstater, chief executive of charity Sex Matters, which provided evidence in the case, said the ruling gave a powerful legal signal that policymakers and organisations need to recognise that sex was real and immutable. ‘Every employer, government body, service provider, police force, NHS trust, school and university that has adopted policies based on gender self-ID should spend the Easter holidays throwing them away,’ she said. ‘Single-sex services, from toilets and changing rooms to women’s refuges and groups such as the Girl Guides, can and should be provided based on the everyday understanding of male and female. ‘The Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission should step up and issue straightforward back-of-a-postcard guidance so that all organisations follow the law and provide genuinely single-sex spaces and services.’ Outside the court, Susan Smith of FWS welcomed the result as a ‘really concrete basis for going forward’ but warned that ‘there is going to be an ongoing fight’. ‘What our politicians need to get their heads around is this is the law,’ she said. ‘They need to stop putting faulty guidance into schools and hospitals.’ Her comments were echoed by Ceri Williams, from Labour Women’s Declaration, who called on her party to stand by its manifesto commitment to protect single-sex exceptions for biological women. However, Labour’s uphill battle was immediately clear last night as domestic abuse charity Refuge was the first to state that the ruling ‘will not change the way Refuge operates’. Chief executive Gemma Sherrington said: ‘We remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women.’ A government spokesman said: ‘We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence.’ ‘So many HR manuals to pulp’ IT IS a testament to the insanity of the modern age that Britain has been fractiously debating the answer to an absurdly simple question: ‘What is a woman?’ Many will struggle to comprehend how this once-sensible country could fall so far as to require the highest court in the land to settle such an obvious matter of fact. But so powerful and pernicious has been the influence of trans activists on public policy, ruthlessly steamrolling women’s legal rights as a result, that our most senior judges have had to adjudicate. Yesterday, the Supreme Court gave its response. In a long-overdue victory for common sense, it ruled unanimously that sex as defined in the Equality Act is biological, immutable and cannot be altered. Put simply, trans women are, by definition, male (and vice versa). They cannot be deemed a member of the opposite sex – even if holding a gender recognition certificate. Trans people should of course be treated with respect. But as the judges noted, they’re protected from discrimination by the Equality Act and upholding women’s rights doesn’t strip them of a single one. The truth is, this judgment strikes a huge blow for women and for scientific fact over legal fiction. With luck, it will signal the end of an era of collective madness in which the trans lobby has sought to warp reality. This insidious cult has demanded we all obediently repeat their shibboleth – that ‘trans women are women’. It has attempted to convince us that rapists, such as Isla Bryson, belonged in female prisons. When women’s rights campaigners stood up for the truth, they were vilified – accused of encouraging hate crimes, forced out of their jobs and publicly cancelled. Yet these heroines – championed by JK Rowling – never gave up. They faced down this fringe ideology that erodes the basic tenets of equality law and undermines the well-established safeguarding principles. Yesterday, they got their reward. While this case involved a small feminist group taking the Scottish government to court, the ramifications of the judgment will affect the whole of the UK. It makes clear that trans women can be excluded from female-only environments such as changing rooms, toilets, medical settings, refuges and sports. This will protect women and girls’ dignity, privacy and safety. Sir Keir Starmer’s spin doctors insist the ruling validates his efforts to steer Labour towards a more ‘common sense’ approach on gender. Once again, the Prime Minister is taking the public for fools. Since becoming leader, he has dodged the simple question of what defines a woman. Indeed, not long ago he claimed 99.9 per cent of women don’t have penises – suggesting tens of thousands in Britain do. Of course, the road to Damascus is paved with strange changes of heart. So if Sir Keir genuinely has seen the light, he will clarify Government guidance to make sure that public bodies understand that sex means biological sex – no ifs, not buts. Then he must drain every last drop of gender poison – from our schools, our hospitals, our police, from every corner of public life. Will he be inclined to do so? While savouring yesterday’s victory, women’s groups should not rest upon their laurels. For trans zealots, with their indoctrinated supporters in the political mainstream, the battle is far from over. This shrill minority will not rest until the very basis of women’s rights is obliterated. The country owes the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude for its sensible judgment. But on this issue, lines of sanity need to be not drawn in the sand, but carved in stone. Article Name:HISTORIC VICTORY FOR WOMEN... AND COMMON SENSE Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman and Harriet Line Start Page:1 End Page:1
Far too many liberals jumped on the trans bandwagon and betrayed women Daily Mail17 Apr 2025By Julie Bindel HEADING to the Supreme Court in Parliament Square this morning, I couldn’t help but think back 21 years to January 2004, when my first column on the trans issue was published in a Left-wing newspaper. My editor, who has since favoured misogynistic trans activists over female writers, fully supported publishing the piece – in which I railed against the idea males can decide to be women because of some internal ‘feeling’. At the time, the trans rights movement was gathering pace – and this was long before the frenzy that came with social media and online forums. The years since I wrote that column have been life-changing and career-shaping, and I cannot pretend they have not had a profound effect on me as a person. For daring to state biological truth – that a man can never turn into a woman – I have been shunned from liberal society, mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from shortlists for journalism prizes and had invitations to events such as the Sydney Literary Festival rescinded after furious public backlash. I have been offered weekly columns – only to be told the decision had been put on hold. I have turned up to events at which I was billed to speak (pro bono) as a leading feminist activist about issues such as child sexual abuse, domestic violence, rape and all aspects of male violence against women – only to find a 200-strong, angry demonstration against me. I have been shouted at when sitting on panels. I have had crowds throw objects at me. The death and rape threats have come thick and fast. In 2019, I was attacked by a 6ft-tall, bearded man in a dress outside Edinburgh University, where I had been speaking, with other feminists, about the importance of single-sex spaces. I recount this not to elicit sympathy, but to outline the experience of a feminist like me who speaks out against the abuse of women. THAT toxic reality, I hope, is coming to an end. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ means biological sex – not legal sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate. And ‘sexual orientation’ means attraction to the same sex, opposite sex, or both. Most importantly to me, a ‘lesbian’ is now officially defined as a biological female who is attracted to other biological females. Until now, the law absurdly counted trans women (who are biological males) as females. As Kate Barker of feminist group LGB Alliance said yesterday: ‘Men aren’t lesbians. Even if they really want to be. Even if it makes them sad when we say no. Even if they have cosmetic surgery and take hormones. Even if they have paid £5 for a certificate. Men aren’t lesbians. Not now. Not ever.’ The Supreme Court’s ruling has been a long time coming. Now increasing numbers of reasonable people are recognising what feminists like me have been saying for years. The problem with this terrible war (I can’t call it a debate, because the other, intolerant side refused to engage) is that many ‘liberals’ have found themselves championing the wrong side. These are not just militant activists. Sensible, intelligent people – most often on the Left, but not always – jumped on board the ‘trans train’, and betrayed women by failing to apply any critical thinking and refusing to acknowledge biological reality. These voices claimed our denial of self-identification was like ‘another Section 28’ – the cruel Thatcher-era law that stopped local authorities from ‘promoting’ or endorsing homosexuality. And they remained stubbornly ignorant of what trans activists were actually demanding. Trans women already had their own rights but they wanted to take rights from us biological women, demanding to invade the physical spaces we had carved out for ourselves precisely because a significant minority of men pose a danger to women and girls. I’m talking about rape crisis centres, domestic-violence shelters and single-sex hospital wards and prison wings. Women’s lives literally depend on those spaces, and always have. Two years ago, I co-founded The Lesbian Project with Kathleen Stock, the former philosophy professor at Sussex University who was hounded out of her job for holding perfectly reasonable (and factually correct) views on sex and gender. AT the time, we set up safe spaces dedicated to women who had suffered violence at the hands of abusive male partners. Tellingly, barely a peep was heard from men’s rights activists. They knew they had no credible argument against such facilities. Those men didn’t make a fuss because they knew they had the rest of the world as their playground. Trans activists, however, have posed as progressives, demanding that we lose all those spaces. Most galling to me now is that the liberal ‘intellects’ who amplified their sinister cause will still sit at dinner parties, their reputations intact. Most of them will never see for themselves the unspeakable harm that the trans moment – and its mania for gender re-assignment, genital mutilation and harmful hormone treatment – has done to women and young girls over the past decade. But I have, time and time again. So where do we go from here? Which institutions can we save, and which should be metaphorically burned to the ground? First on my list would be universities – which have promoted the trans cause and silenced those who challenge it, with reckless abandon. In this vein, police and prosecutors must also stop recording the preferred ‘gender identity’ of those arrested and charged – for every crime, not just crimes against females. Just take the shaven-headed thug Adam Graham who carried out two violent rapes between 2016 and 2019 and was allowed to appear in Glasgow High Court as a lipstick-smeared ‘woman’ who went by the name of Isla Bryson. This biological male was subsequently dispatched to an all-female Scottish prison – before public backlash saw him moved to an all-male jail. We must, too, ensure that newspapers report the sex of perpetrators of crime accurately. Many male criminals have been ludicrously described as ‘women’ after committing acts of violence and abuse – including downloading child abuse images. It is confusing and wrong. Employers must undergo proper training on the Equality Act and yesterday’s clarification of it, including on the law as it relates to biological sex and gender identity. Venues hosting feminists for events must stop caving into trans activists complaining about women daring to assemble without including males claiming to be women. They need to hold firm and defend free speech, not capitulate to bullies. There must be recognition and apologies for all who have lost jobs, been forced to endure expensive court cases, been gaslit or cancelled from events, and told we are bigots. The suffering has been horrendous – yet, in the spirit of feminist pride, we have soldiered on. It has taken its toll, but we have always known we are on the right side of history. JULIE Bindel is the UK’s leading feminist campaigner and has written Lesbians: Where Are We Now? n Article Name:Far too many liberals jumped on the trans bandwagon and betrayed women Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Julie Bindel Start Page:7 End Page:7
An era of collective madness is over. This is not a ‘defeat’ for trans women, it’s an accurate reflection of who we really are Daily Mail17 Apr 2025by Debbie Hayton THANK the Lord for some common sense. In this case, thank Lord Hodge, who yesterday delivered the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling that trans women are not biologically female. Extraordinary as it is that such an obvious statement requires an 88-page judgment, compiled over many months by the highest court of appeal in the country, this decision is crucial. It was a momentous day for women and for the law. An era of collective madness is over – though we must not be complacent, because the angry brigade are likely to continue their attempts to impose their demands through bullying. They will keep bellowing ‘trans women are women’ through their megaphones and hurling vile threats at anyone who dares oppose them. The war isn’t over, but the turning point has been reached. In most circumstances, at least, no longer will any man, whether he’s sporting a wig and make-up or a full beard, be able to wave a piece of paper headed ‘gender recognition certificate’ and insist the rest of us acknowledge his legal right to be recognised as female. Biology This represents a victory for women and girls everywhere, and a major step towards enhancing their safety. I’m especially grateful to the court for emphasising that the ruling does not represent a ‘defeat’ for trans women. On the contrary, it’s an accurate and reassuring reflection of who people like me really, biologically are. We all instinctively know the difference between men and women, despite the powerful lobby that has tried its damndest to deny it. I’m fortunate in being a science teacher with a thorough grasp of biology, so I’m well able to articulate the truth behind the common sense. Adults who, like me, need to change their appearance and even their physical shape, in order to feel comfortable in their own skin, should be able to do so safely. Everyone ought to respect that need. But it doesn’t alter the basic reality that, as the Supreme Court has ruled, ‘the concept of sex is binary’. The biology of sex is much more than just reproduction. It affects the development of our bodies, most obviously during puberty but quite profoundly from the moment of conception. Throughout the nine months before birth, human bodies develop according to their sex, and that continues to be true during each minute of childhood. Boys and girls develop along different paths. Social conditioning plays a part, naturally, but that only modifies the effects of biological sex. I have immense admiration for the campaign group For Women Scotland, who have fought fearlessly every step of the way. They’ve battled through the courts in Scotland and then England, through the High Court and the Court of Session, all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s due to their courage and tenacity that sanity has been restored to the law of the UK. Campaigners in other countries that are still living in a legal fantasy world of trans delusion will take great hope from this. Politicians of all parties have failed women during this long battle. Most egregiously, Sir Keir Starmer was spouting nonsense when he claimed some women had penises. He’s a lawyer, and I trust this ruling has helped him to remember the difference between men and women. We shall have to see how the government reacts to the ruling. Predictably, some Labour ministers are taking the line that this verdict just confirms what they’ve been saying all along – which is, of course, not true. I whole-heartedly challenge the line taken by MP Nadia Whittome who said yesterday: ‘I share the deep disappointment in today’s Supreme Court ruling, and the concerns about what this will mean for trans women going forward. ‘Today and every day, I stand in unwavering solidarity with the trans community. We must never stop fighting for trans rights.’ Labour should have offered support to biological women from the moment they came to power, since the law as it stood was incoherent. Confusion The blame for that falls on previous administrations, who allowed confusion and inconsistency to multiply because they were too intimidated by the trans lobbyists. Theresa May, when she was prime minister, pledged to usher in the crazy world of gender recognition certificates by self identification alone. We’ve seen male domestic abusers strong-arm their way into women’s spaces, male athletes using their masculine physiques to gain a biological advantage in women’s sports, and male voyeurs sidling into women’s changing rooms. All these outrageous and dangerous distortions of common sense were made possible by a Conservative administration that was too weak to act. But the scandal goes back further still, to the Blair era, when the Gender Recognition Act was introduced without sufficient regard for common sense. Politicians have had numerous opportunities to turn the tide, but lacked the willpower and the gumption shown by For Women Scotland. So I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for their decision. The judges could have copied the politicians and hidden behind a wall of excuses. They might, for instance, have claimed that, as the Equality Act doesn’t define what a woman is, the responsibility to clear up this mess lay with parliament. In that case, the controversy would have probably dragged on for years. Instead, the court took firm action. That’s a sharp admonition to the government, though I don’t expect Downing Street will admit it. Most of all, I welcome the ruling as a teacher, whose mission for nearly 30 years has been to guide and educate children. When I decided to transition, I was a full adult. I knew my own mind, whatever happened. That cannot be said of any teenager or pre-pubertal child. They are not old enough to make responsible decisions that will have drastic and lifelong consequences, such as altering their bodies with hormones and surgery. I only began ‘socially transitioning’ in 2012 – at the age of 44. I started to change my appearance and my wardrobe. I experimented with make-up and attempted to be seen as a woman. Other people responded by referring to me using female pronouns. A year later, I began hormone treatment provided by the NHS. Difficult though this was for my wife Stephanie and our three children, we all stayed together. And despite all the inevitable problems I faced at the school where I worked as a science teacher, the transition brought me huge relief. Turmoil I’d been secretly trying on women’s clothes since I was a small child, and began buying my own at 14. Decades of concealing my inner turmoil was coming to an end. In 2016, I took the ultimate step of undergoing gender realignment surgery on my genitals. My body is now female to all appearances, but I’m a trans woman, a man who has gone to great lengths to look female, and who ‘lives as a woman’. There’s a very significant difference – and one that the law now acknowledges. There are two sexes, male and female, and sex cannot be changed. Trans women certainly exist – I’m one of them. But trans women, however loudly the slogans blare, are not women. n Debbie Hayton is a transgender teacher and journalist. Article Name:An era of collective madness is over. This is not a ‘defeat’ for trans women, it’s an accurate reflection of who we really are Publication:Daily Mail Author:by Debbie Hayton Start Page:14 End Page:14
JK’s barrister friend ‘banned from vets over gender beliefs’ Daily Mail17 Apr 2025By Freya Barnes Smiles: JK Rowling with Allison Bailey A BARRISTER friend of JK Rowling is suing a vets’ practice after claiming she was barred ‘over her gender-critical views’. Allison Bailey, a criminal defence lawyer, was ‘expelled’ from the register of Palmerston Veterinary Group’s practice in Walthamstow, east London, in January 2023 despite her two dogs going there for 13 years. The practice say her de-registration came after complaints over her ‘rude’ and ‘unacceptable behaviour’, including one staff member who claimed ‘she has never had to deal with such a rude client, ever’. But Ms Bailey has denied the allegations and instead claims the real reason she was told not to return was due to her gender-critical beliefs. She alleges there was no justification for the ban nor any basis for claims about her conduct towards staff, and is now suing Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd, trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group, for £25,000. In 2022, Ms Bailey was previously involved in a high-profile legal clash with LGBT+ rights group, Stonewall, over claims she was discriminated against due to her belief being female is an ‘immutable biological fact’. During her campaign, she gained the support of author Ms Rowling, who praised her as ‘a heroine to me and innumerable other feminists’. In court documents, Ms Bailey’s barrister Jeffrey Jupp says she claims she was ‘directly discriminated against’ due to beliefs which are protected by the 2010 Equality Act. She also said an internal memo which branded her ‘absolutely vile’ was probably prompted by disapproval of her beliefs, rather than concerns about her conduct towards staff memebers. Rebutting Ms Bailey’s claims, defence barrister Gus Baker says the reason she was told not to come back was because her actions had triggered its ‘zero tolerance policy’ on behaviour towards staff. He added: ‘She repeatedly behaved in an unacceptable manner towards staff.’ The case is due to return for trial at a later date. ‘Discriminated against’ NOW EVEN THE ARMY’S WORKING FROM HOME. DON’T PANIC! LITTLEJOHN’S BACK TOMORROW Article Name:JK’s barrister friend ‘banned from vets over gender beliefs’ Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Freya Barnes Start Page:19 End Page:19
Telegraph [11]
Trans women are not women Supreme Court’s ruling will see huge changes to public and private sector gender guidance The Daily Telegraph17 Apr 2025By Daniel Martin, Janet Eastham and Hayley Dixon Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrate outside the Supreme Court after the verdict PUBLIC bodies are under pressure to tear up pro-trans guidance after a ruling that only biological women are women. The decision by the Supreme Court that laws against sex-based discrimination should only apply to biological women will lead to a raft of changes. They are expected to include who can access single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches, and who can join female teams in elite sport. Previously, trans women were given the same rights as biological women, allowing them access to female-only spaces and groups. Although the judges said that trans women could not be discriminated against, the ruling means they will no longer be treated the same as people born female.last night, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the government watchdog, promised to rewrite its guidance to public bodies by the summer. The NHS, National Police Chief ’s Council and other bodies are also expected to update guidance soon. The Supreme Court’s judgment was welcomed by JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author and prominent women’s rights campaigner, who said it would “protect the rights of women and girls across the UK”. She added: “Spare a thought today for the UK employers, government departments, health boards, academic institutions and sporting bodies who’ve been breaking equality law to appease activist groups. So many HR manuals to pulp. So many outof-court settlements to pay.” Judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not the gender with which a person identifies. The justices said that for the purpose of equality laws, transgender women were not legally women even if they have obtained a gender recognition certificate. They found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the Armed Forces”. Judges also ruled that sex was binary, meaning that the central tenet of gender ideology – that there is a spectrum of gender identities – has no basis in law. The ruling means that people who were born male can lawfully be excluded from women’s sports, changing rooms, lavatories, women-only support groups and women-only shortlists. It will require a rewriting of rules across the public and private sectors. Handing down the court’s judgment on whether sex-based protections should only apply to people who were born female, Lord Hodge, the court’s deputy president, said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. The justices made clear that their decision made no difference to protections against discrimination for transgender people, and insisted it should not be interpreted as “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. Lord Hodge said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.” It followed a years-long legal battle between For Women Scotland, a campaign group, and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman. Rowling said yesterday: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.” Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”. A government spokesman said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.” Labour Women’s Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, to take concrete action to ensure the judgment is fully reflected in all public sector guidance. It said: “The Government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment. “The ‘clarity and confidence’ the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women’s branches and committees.” In February, Wes Streeting told the Darlington nurses – eight nurses suing their trust after being forced to share a changing room with a transgender colleague – that he would wait until the Supreme Court ruling before issuing new guidance on single-sex spaces. In a letter to them, seen by The Telegraph, he said: “Given the sensitivity of the issue, it is important to me that any changes made are credible and enduring… When I have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter, I will consider what steps to take.” A Whitehall source said the Government’s legal department would now ‘We will work at pace to incorporate implications of this into the updated [human rights] code’ consider the ruling in full before publishing new guidance. It is understood that the NPCC will consider the ruling before bringing out new guidance for the police. It follows criticism that some forces are allowing trans women – that is biological men – to strip search vulnerable females. Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: “The Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as a woman and that the concept of sex is binary… Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.” Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairman of the EHRC, said: “We will take the outcome of this appeal into account in our ongoing work as the regulator of the Equality Act. That includes the development of our revised Code of Practice which, subject to ministerial approval, is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess. “We will be working at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment into the updated code, which supports service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice. “Where this judgment impacts upon our other advice for duty-bearers, we will review it as a matter of urgency and alert users to where guidance has been withdrawn or needs to be updated.”
From lavatories to sports, this ruling is seismic for women Ministers poised to change the law after landmark judgment puts to bed years of fevered debate The Daily Telegraph17 Apr 2025By Haley Dixon For Women Scotland campaigners in London yesterday, above; Marion Calder, right, celebrates with champagne outside the Supreme Court; inset below, the writer JK Rowling THE Supreme Court ruling that only biological women are women will have wide-ranging implications on everything from female bathrooms to elite sport. The decision, in which some of the country’s most senior judges were forced to point out that “as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant”, has been hailed as a victory for common sense. Campaigners have said it provides “clarity over what a woman means” under equality laws, and protects women’s rights. It is likely to prompt a slew of policy changes. The Telegraph has seen evidence that ministers were waiting for this ruling before issuing guidance on single-sex spaces. The judges said that allowing biological men to be legally considered women because they had obtained a certificate saying that they were female led to “incoherence and absurdity”. They concluded that in equality law “woman” “always and only means a biological female” and “to reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head”. The case centred on whether trans people who had legally changed their gender by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) were classed as the opposite biological sex under the 2010 Equality Act. Confusion over the definition of sex in the Act has created issues and resulted in people being unwilling to exclude biological men from women-only spaces and services for fear of being accused of discrimination. But the Supreme Court’s 88-page unanimous judgement noted that “it makes no sense” for sex-based rights and protections to be regulated on the basis of whether someone has a GRC, which is confidential and does not “require any physiological change or even any change in outward appearance”. The judges pointed out that the ruling does not diminish protections for trans people, because gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. So, what does this ruling mean in practice? Toilets and changing rooms The Equality Act allows service providers to provide such single-sex spaces when it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” including women’s safety, privacy and dignity. But trans rights campaigners have argued that those who change gender by obtaining a GRC could not be legally excluded from the facilities that matched their new gender. However, asking for a person’s certificate before they use a lavatory is both impractical and in itself could be a form of discrimination. Yesterday’s ruling clarified that sex means biological sex and that “provided it is proportionate, the female-only nature of the service... would permit the exclusion of all males, including males living in the female gender”. Judges described it as “fanciful (even perverse)” to think a certificate would make a difference to objections of men being in women’s spaces and “the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex”. Sport The inclusion of biological men in women-only categories has led to accusations of unfairness against female participants, who are at a physical disadvantage. Last week, there was backlash at the Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series Event 2 final in which two transgender players who were born male competed for the title. The Supreme Court said that sport is a “gender-affected activity” which “depends on a determination of whether the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage as competitors in a particular sport when compared to average persons of the other sex”. Giving an example of boxing, in which it is “obvious” that women are at a disadvantage against men, they said by defining sex as biological sex it means “that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women, regardless of their GRC status”. The ruling therefore paves the way for trans women to be excluded from women’s sports provided there is a reason for doing so, such as men having a physical advantage. NHS While hospitals are required to provide female-only hospital wards, NHS England’s own guidance states that trans people should be accommodated according to their gender identity. Officials were already updating the guidance and have confirmed the ruling will be considered as they move forward. It could also pave the way for wider changes in the health service. Women-only shortlists and quotas The issue of using positive action to increase the representation of women in public life was at the centre of the Supreme Court case, which was a challenge JK Rowling on X (formerly Twitter) Winners today:  Women and girls, including trans-identified women (continue to benefit from maternity rights etc)  Gay people  Freedom of speech  Freedom of association  Those at risk of discrimination for a belief in the material reality of sex to statutory guidance passed by the Scottish Government in 2018. This guidance meant that trans women who had obtained a GRC counted as female in quotas for the representation of women on the boards of public authorities. The ruling said that the “purpose of addressing the particular needs, disadvantages or participation levels of women” is “undermined” if that group includes trans women, and they do not count toward women-only quotas. Single-sex support groups Single-sex support services, such as women-only rape counselling or refuges, have been one of the most sensitive areas of debate. A number of groups have said that they are “inclusive” of trans women and one – Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre – was found to have failed its service users by failing to provide female-only spaces. The Supreme Court judges highlighted the inconsistency in allowing an “inclusive” service, saying that “if, as a matter of law, a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC – even if they present as biological men – it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.” Lesbian social clubs The court heard evidence that the threat of having to include biological men in their social clubs “is having a chilling effect on lesbians who are no longer using lesbian-only spaces because of the presence of trans women (i.e. biological men who live in the female gender)”. In what has been hailed as a victory for LGB rights, the judges said that lesbians and gay men are by definition attracted to people of the same biological sex and that “people are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate”. Free speech The argument over the crossover between trans rights and women’s rights has long been marked by accusations of bigotry and a claim that there should be “no debate” over whether trans women are women. However, the considered judgment, which took into account years of legal hearings, highlighted that it was “incoherent” to class biological men as women. Article Name:From lavatories to sports, this ruling is seismic for women Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Haley Dixon Start Page:4 End Page:4
The women who led the push for victory How three Mumsnet users, one sacked academic and a charity boss fought through dogma and death threats The Daily Telegraph17 Apr 2025By Janet Eastham ACTING RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS EDITOR Maya Forstater, of the campaign group Sex Matters, was the subject of a landmark tribunal case in 2021 over her gender-critical beliefs IT WAS a moment they had spent seven years tirelessly fighting for. When Lord Hodge told the Supreme Court that the judges had unanimously decided that “sex” refers to “biological sex”, two campaigners who brought the legal challenge broke down in tears. For seven years, Marion Calder and Susan Smith have fought – along with their co-director at the campaign group For Women Scotland, Trina Budge – to have this reality recognised. Yesterday, the highest court in the land sided with them, finding that “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman, and biological sex”. When the judgment finally came, Ms Calder, 55, from Edinburgh, told The Telegraph it was overwhelming. “That was the moment when Susan and I started crying,” she said. “I thought, ‘They’ve actually said it! It’s what we’ve been saying all along. Now, the highest court in the land – five Supreme Court judges – were unanimous in their decision. It feels like the adults are back in the room.” Ms Calder, an NHS administrator, is one of the women behind the campaign group For Women Scotland, which challenged the Scottish Government over its insistence that trans women with gender recognition certificates (GRCS) should be considered legally female. In a post on the social media site X, JK Rowling – who has financially supported the group – attributed the Supreme Court victory to the trio. “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK,” she said. But speaking to The Telegraph, Ms Calder disputed the idea that the trio were “extraordinary”. However, she did admit they were more determined than many of their opponents may have given them credit for. “If you anger us enough, then we will just keep going,” she said. Ms Rowling, a vocal supporter of sexbased rights, donated £70,000 to the crowd fund for For Woman Scotland’s legal challenge. “We’re so grateful for her support over the years, she has done the most to actually raise women’s rights across the wider world,” Ms Calder said. She explained that she formed For Women Scotland in her living room in 2018, along with Ms Smith, 54, an Oxford-educated former fund manager from Edinburgh; and Ms Budge, a 53-year-old farmer’s wife. The trio met on Mumsnet and bonded over their mutual concerns about how gender recognition reforms – in particular the ability for any man to self-identify as a woman – could effect women. “We genuinely thought that the main women’s organisations in Scotland would rally around this, Ms Calder said. “And they didn’t. So that’s why we formed to actually take a front-facing fight back. I didn’t realise how hard it was going to be. If you had told me then what I know now I would probably run for the hills.” Like other high-profile feminists, the For Women Scotland trio have faced ostracisation, name-calling and even “genuine threats to our lives”. Ms Calder said the legal case began seven years ago when her fellow campaigner Ms Budge, who had given up her finance job to become a stay-athome mother, spotted that the Scottish Parliament had added a “bonkers definition of what they believed women were” in its statutory guidance to accompany a piece of legislation: the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. “Trina saw this and thought this was a mechanism for sneaking self-id in and for redefining ‘It’s what we’ve been saying all along. It feels like the adults are back in the room’ what women were,” Ms Calder said. Two other women who played a pivotal role in the campaign were also in court today. Maya Forstater, chief executive officer at Sex Matters, a human rights charity which intervened in the case, celebrated outside along with the charity’s director of advocacy, Helen Joyce. Ms Forstater’s landmark employment tribunal case in 2021 established that gender critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010, preventing employers from discriminating against women who do not believe that people can change sex. Today’s Supreme Court judgment repeatedly cited legal arguments put forward by Sex Matters, which argued that blurring the boundary of what it means to be a woman creates “absurdity and incoherence” across public life. Ms Joyce told The Telegraph that it was “absolutely disgraceful” the case had reached the Supreme Court. “It really did seem hopeless on occasion,” she said. “We were right. These women, these ordinary women, saying that sex is material in the Equality Act. They were right and the regulator was wrong, the Government was wrong, Keir Starmer was wrong.” Article Name:The women who led the push for victory Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Janet Eastham ACTING RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS EDITOR Start Page:6 End Page:6
A political cartoon by Blower published in The Telegraph on 17 April 2025 satirises the UK Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case. The central image is a large mock book cover titled “SUPREME COURT AND THE OUTBREAK OF COMMON SENSE,” stylised to resemble a fantasy novel, a likely allusion to the Harry Potter series. The book cover depicts a cheering crowd outside the Supreme Court holding placards with slogans such as “SEX IS BINARY,” “TRANSWOMEN ARE NOT WOMEN,” “ONLY WOMEN GET PREGNANT,” and “NO HUMAN BEING CAN CHANGE SEX.” The building and sky are drawn in dark blue, giving a dramatic and authoritative feel to the image. To the right of the mock book cover, two women are shown speaking. One of them says, “That could be J.K. Rowling’s next book...” referencing Rowling’s public views on gender identity and aligning her with the cartoon’s perspective.
At last, some legal common sense on gender The Government must now move to put the Supreme Court’s ruling into practical effect The Daily Telegraph17 Apr 2025KEMI BADENOCH Women are women. We didn’t need a court to tell us that. But here we are. It took a Supreme Court decision to confirm what we all know: that a piece of paper cannot make a man a woman. For too long the price has been paid by individual women taking action to uphold the law, at great personal cost. Just last month, we saw the extraordinary case of a nurse suspended from work for addressing a transgender paedophile as “Mister”. Separately, in East Fife, Sandie Peggie was suspended after she complained about a male doctor who identifies as a woman sharing the same communal changing room. A few weeks ago, I met the Darlington nurses forced to bring legal action after a male nurse started using their changing room. These nurses’ careers are threatened, but the man has the support of hospital managers who misunderstand the law. Nonetheless, it is a powerful victory for the determined women behind For Women Scotland (FWS) – and women all over the UK – that the Supreme Court has allowed their appeal. The protection of women’s spaces, services and associations will no longer be undermined by the ability of men to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate and change the sex on their birth certificate to female. My worry now is that we have a Labour Government that has bent the knee to this ideology. Keir Starmer believes that one in 1,000 women have penises. No one in the Cabinet can define what a woman is. I spent years battling abuse from Labour MPS as I fought to uphold biological sex in government and blocked the SNP from introducing their mad self-identity laws. Yet this Labour Government is not interested in bringing sanity and common sense. Instead, right now they are drafting yet more equality laws that will bring even more confusion. We shouldn’t need an Equality Act, workplace regulations and endless court cases to recognise that women need single-sex changing rooms and toilets. As the charity Sex Matters points out, the two most common sexual offences are indecent exposure and voyeurism. A subset of men will go to extreme lengths to prey on women who need protection. Sadly, a raft of foolish guidelines designed to signal organisational inclusivity have been embedded across the private and public sectors. That is why, although I welcome today’s judgment, I know too many organisations will still fail women. As Minister for Women and Equalities, I started a call for evidence to find such examples of bad guidance that is misinterpreting the law. The results were depressing. The Government needs to continue my work and ensure the dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls is protected. Litigation is stressful, costly and time-consuming. Now the Government must stop relying on brave women to do its job. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, says he is on the side of the Darlington nurses, but is prevaricating in the hope that this judgment will clear up any ambiguity. But it is already clear that single-sex changing rooms for women in workplaces are not just permitted, but required by law. Outrageously, in the Darlington and East Fife cases, the union that is supposed to represent nurses, the Royal College of Nurses, refused to represent the female nurses or provide legal assistance, instead saying it was “unwavering in our commitment to end transphobia in nursing”. It’s hard to believe that, with all the challenges facing the nursing profession in this country, the promotion of contested and damaging ideology can be a priority. But, sadly, this is a pattern we have seen across the public sector. Professor Alice Sullivan’s recent report into data and research in sex and gender spells out why, in healthcare in particular, using confusing terminology threatens not just the privacy and safety of women staff and patients, but can put lives at risk. Now that we have legal clarity on the foundational question of the definition of sex, Keir Starmer should show some courage and do the right thing. Across the public sector, managers must start to recognise that gender ideology is not an act of kindness to a perceived maligned minority. It is a very serious matter that can create risks and cause great discomfort to women and men, and children of both sexes. The Conservative Party under my leadership is the party of common sense. We will be holding the Government’s feet to the fire so that they do what is necessary, not what is trendy. Article Name:At last, some legal common sense on gender Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:KEMI BADENOCH Start Page:14 End Page:14

Friday Total: 18

The Guardian [3]
NHS told it must act after ruling on gender The Guardian18 Apr 2025Andrew Gregory Severin Carrell Rajeev Syal NHS chiefs are working to overhaul guidelines for single-sex spaces in thousands of hospitals and GP surgeries after the equality watchdog warned they would be pursued if they failed to do so. The British Transport Police (BTP) became the first to change policies yesterday amid the fallout from the supreme court ruling on the legal definition of a woman, piling pressure on the health service and other organisations to revamp their guidance. Current NHS guidance in England says transgender people should be accommodated based on how they dress, their names and their pronouns. Under Wednesday’s ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under the Equality Act 2010, this would be scrapped. Senior NHS legal officials and estates and facilities managers are now racing to draw up proposals for how hospitals, community care centres and GP practices should reflect the ruling, sources have told the Guardian. The judgment poses a challenge for the NHS, which has an estate spanning 25m sq metres in England alone, where infrastructure repair bills top £14bn. The issue is further complicated by the fact that health policy and spending are devolved in Wales and Scotland. Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday: “They [the NHS] have to change it. They now have clarity. There is no confusion as of yesterday, at 10.30 in the morning, and they can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith, but they have to change it. We will be having conversations with them to update that guidance.” Asked if the EHRC would pursue the case if it did not, Lady Falkner replied: “Yes, we will.” An NHS England spokesperson said: “The NHS is currently reviewing guidance on same sex accommodation and as part of this process, will consider and take into account all relevant legislation and today’s ruling.” Meanwhile, the BTP, which patrols the railways in Great Britain, announced that male officers would conduct any intimate searches of trans women “in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee”, while trans men would be searched by female officers. Under the force’s previous policy, officers had been told that anyone in custody with a gender recognition certificate would be searched by an officer matching a detainee’s acquired gender. The update comes during a legal battle between gender-critical campaigners and the force over its guidance that allowed officers who are trans women to strip-search women, so long as the officer held a gender recognition certificate. The rapid change of approach came after Falkner said the ECHR would be issuing updated and legally binding codes of practice on singlesex spaces and services in the wake of the “enormously consequential” court ruling. “We are going to have a new statutory code of practice [meaning] it will be interpreted by courts as the law of the land. We’re hoping we’re going to have that by the summer,” she told Today. The judgment meant only biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and women’s toilets, or participate in women-only sporting events and teams, or be placed in women’s wards in hospitals. Even so, the commission would “not tolerate” discrimination or harassment of trans people, which remained unlawful under the Equality Act, and would support trans women taking out equal pay claims under sex discrimination laws. Falkner said the supreme court ruling was “a victory for common sense” but “only if you recognise that trans people exist, they have rights and their rights must be respected”. The UK government has avoided making any substantial comment on the ruling, but a strong indication of Labour’s approach came from Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, who swung the party behind the supreme court and ECHR’s stance. Previously a supporter of selfidentification for trans people, Sarwar said there was now a need for an “urgent” update of Scotland’s policies on single-sex spaces. Scottish ministers are expected to update Holyrood next week on their response to the ruling. Most of the reaction from Westminster politicians continued to be from the Conservatives. Speaking during a local elections campaign visit to Cambridgeshire, Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the court ruling was a vindication of the party’s stance. She said she would support changes to the Equality Act and Gender Recognition Act to cement the court’s view. “These laws were written 20 years ago plus, when the world was different,” she said. There was little sign of how ministers will help institutions navigate the new framework. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, speaking on a visit to Scunthorpe, dodged questions on the issue, saying only that more advice would come in “due course”. Among the issues that will need to be addressed is provision of toilet facilities for trans people, given the EHRC said the ruling means they will not be able to use single-sex toilets. ‘They [the NHS] have to change it. We will be having conversations with them to update that guidance’ Kishwer Falkner EHRC chair Article Name:NHS told it must act after ruling on gender Publication:The Guardian Author:Andrew Gregory Severin Carrell Rajeev Syal Start Page:1 End Page:1
‘It does bring clarity’ What decision means for public organisations The Guardian18 Apr 2025Amelia Gentleman Wednesday’s supreme court judgment on the legal definition of a woman will have significant implications across policy areas from sport, to prisons and the NHS. It will also impact how smaller organisations manage single-sex spaces and services. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said it will publish a new statutory code of practice by the summer so that it can offer advice to public bodies and organisations about how they may need to revise their policies. The supreme court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain. The unanimous judgment that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law should add clarity to a number of ongoing disputes over single-sex spaces. Sport Kishwer Falkner, a member of the House of Lords and the chair of the EHRC, said the impact of the ruling on sport was “enormously consequential” and confirmed that it was the “correct interpretation” to conclude that those born as men could not take part in women’s sport. She said sports organisations should read the judgment. “It does bring clarity, and helps them decide what they should do,” she said. Sebastian Coe, the president of World Athletics, welcomed the ruling, adding that it removed legal uncertainty. “It protects women in places that really matter in sport, whether it’s safe spaces, changing rooms or conduct in and around the field of play,” Lord Coe said. In the ruling, Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, made it clear that some of Equality Act’s provisions would only function properly if sex is interpreted as biological sex, and he named “women’s fair participation” in sport as one relevant area. The use of people’s “certificated sex”, acquired by a gender recognition certificate (GRC), rather than their biological sex in sport had led to an “absence of coherence”, he said. The ruling looked at how women would be disadvantaged because of their sex in a sport that is “gender affected”, such as boxing, if they found themselves competing against biological males. “Women’s average physical strength, stamina and/or physique will disadvantage them as competitors against average men in a boxing match,” the judgment noted. Many UK sport governing bodies have adopted clear policies banning athletes who were born male from participating in female events. But some sports, including football, allow trans women to compete against and alongside biological women if they meet reduced testosterone level requirements. Refuges and rape crisis centres Elizabeth McGlone, an employment discrimination solicitor at didlaw, said refuges would have to review their policies if they wanted to state that they were offering single-sex services and spaces to clients. “There has been a dilution of single-sex services by virtue of organisations having trans inclusion policies. This ruling will give organisations the confidence to say that we are offering this service only to biological women,” McGlone said. The charity Refuge said it would not be changing its policies. “We remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women,” Gemma Sherrington, Refuge’s CEO, said in a statement. NHS A review of NHS services will be required because previous guidance advised that trans patients should be accommodated according to their gender identity. NHS managers will now need to ensure they are recording patients’ biological sex. Lady Falkner expressed impatience at the NHS’s sluggish response. “We’ve been talking to the health service for an inordinately long time, and they keep telling us they’re going to produce new guidance. We will now be asking them when they expect to produce that new guidance,” she said. “They now have clarity.” The health minister Karin Smyth said trans patients should feel reassured that their rights “remain enshrined in the Equality Act” and that they would “have their dignity and privacy respected” in healthcare settings, but she added: “This law was about women’s rights and rights under the Equality Act for sex and for service providers making sure they are compliant with that.” An NHS spokesperson said: “The NHS is currently reviewing guidance on same-sex accommodation and as part of this process will consider and take into account all relevant legislation and today’s ruling.” Changing rooms Falkner said the ruling made it clear that single-sex services such as changing rooms must be based on biological sex but that there was no legal requirement for organisations to provide single-sex services. “If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single sex, then it becomes a mixed-sex space. But there’s no law that forces organisations and service providers to provide a single-sex space, and there is no law against them providing a third, additional space, such as unisex toilets, for example, or changing rooms.” Sandie Peggie, a nurse working for NHS Fife, is taking legal action against her employers, saying she was subject to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act when she was expected to share a changing room with a trans woman. A Newcastle employment tribunal is currently examining a claim filed by five nurses at Darlington Memorial hospital who have complained about the use of a single-sex changing room by a trans colleague. It is not clear whether the supreme court ruling will have an impact on either case. Michael Foran, a lecturer in public law at Glasgow University, said that although the supreme court ruling had no direct legal bearing on the case, it might encourage NHS Fife to consider settling the claim. Toilets Falkner said: “I think the law is quite clear that if a service provider says ‘we’re offering a women’s toilet’, trans [women] should not be using that single-sex facility.” Peter Byrne, the head of employment law at Slater and Gordon, said trans employees might now find that they were asked to use disabled toilets in organisations where there were no gender-neutral facilities. He said that while previously an employee might have been asked which toilet they felt comfortable using, “that option is probably going to disappear”. Emma Bartlett, a partner and diversity, equality and inclusion lead at law firm CM Murray, said many organisations had been guided by the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall on being trans inclusive and might now have to revisit their policies. In business settings there is no legislative framework dictating how toilets should be organised, she added. “It’s about common sense and politeness. There’s nothing that now requires an employer to say: ‘only women can use that toilet, and only men can use this toilet, and trans people cannot use either of those toilets,’” she said. But she acknowledged that trans women might worry that they could be challenged. “You might find people who are against trans women using a female designated toilet in public places being emboldened by the decision of the supreme court to speak out, and that will create a very difficult situation for a trans woman.” Lesbian-only organisations Hodge said the judgment recognised the concerns of lesbian women who he said “have historically suffered marginalisation because of their sexual orientation”, and who had highlighted the anomalies that would adversely affect them if the word sex was “interpreted as certificated sex rather than biological sex”. Kate Barker, the chief executive of the LGB Alliance, a charity for same-sex attracted people, which intervened in the case, said the ruling marked a “watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade”. She added: “The ruling confirms the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC.”. Prisons Prison services will have to revise their policies on where trans prisoners are held as a result of the supreme court ruling. In recent decades, prison policy has evolved in recognition that some trans prisoners who present as women can be vulnerable when they are held in male prisons. Some feminist campaigners have argued that the parallel vulnerability of women in prisons has not been prioritised. In some cases, prisons have allowed inmates to self-identify their gender without requiring a GRC, opening up the potential for exploitation of the system. Decisions to house violent sex offenders in the female estate have periodically sparked national debate. In 2018 the convicted paedophile and rapist Karen White, a 52-year-old trans woman, sexually assaulted two inmates at the female prison where she was being held. In 2023 Isla Bryson, a transgender double rapist, was initially sent to a female prison in Scotland before being moved to a male facility less than 72 hours later. Last week it was reported a trans prisoner, Paris Green, who is serving a life sentence for murder, was still being housed in the women’s wing at Polmont jail in Falkirk after admitting assaulting a female officer. A Scottish Prison Service spokesperson said: “We have received the supreme court’s judgment and are considering any potential impact it may have.” Prison policy is different in England and Wales. Sources said that Ministry of Justice officials were still digesting the judgment. A solution may be to house particularly vulnerable trans identifying prisoners separately from the general prison population. Article Name:‘It does bring clarity’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Amelia Gentleman Start Page:6 End Page:6
The Times [4]
‘Third spaces’ could be needed for trans people Proposal after equalities watchdog inundated with calls about definition of a woman ruling Geraldine Scott - Senior Political Correspondent, Sanchez Manning, Aubrey Allegretti The equalities watchdog has been inundated with calls from organisations seeking clarity on how to enforce the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman, The Times understands. Businesses and public bodies may need to provide neutral “third spaces” for trans people, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said after Wednesday’s ruling that trans women were not legally women. Falkner said the judgment had brought clarity and meant that trans women could not take part in women’s sport or be on single-sex hospital wards, and that changing rooms “must be based on biological sex”. However, Karin Smyth, a health minister, was unable to say yesterday which changing rooms could be used by trans people. She was asked on Times Radio which changing room a trans woman should use, if they had in the past used women’s changing rooms. “A female changing room should be used by women,” she said. Pressed again on the question, Smyth said it was “important that a trans woman or a trans man also has dignity in their use of public spaces”. She added: “We need to make sure that in this discussion we are following the law — so that is clear for women and service providers. This varies [depending] upon what the provision of those service providers are — large organisations, small organisations.” Employment lawyers have said that organisations are grappling with the ruling’s implications and that trans employees could be asked to use disabled lavatories. Education unions said that teachers were “concerned” about the implications. An audit by The Times found that a significant number of organisations, including NHS trusts, FTSE 100 companies and women’s charities, appeared to be reaffirming their commitments to transgender rights after the judgment. Others, such as the British Transport Police, confirmed that their policies had changed. It said that strip searches would be done in accordance with detainees’ biological sex. Most organisations have not yet committed to concrete changes but have pledged to review the judgement. Falkner said that the EHRC would enforce the ruling where there were breaches, and suggested that organisations may need to provide a “third space” for trans customers or employees. She told Today on BBC Radio 4: “There isn’t any law saying that you cannot use a neutral third space, and they should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces.” The “efficacy” of gender recognition certificates (GRCs), which legally change someone’s gender, would also need to be re-examined, Falkner said, after calls for all policies on equality to face a parliamentary overhaul. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said yesterday that the Gender Recognition Act, the law under which GRCs are granted, should be reviewed. A GRC allows a person to change their sex on their birth certificate but after the Supreme Court’s ruling is relevant only in terms of births, deaths, marriages and pensions. More than 8,000 GRCs have been granted since their introduction 20 years ago. The government has no immediate plans to reform the act, but its reaction to the ruling has caused divisions within Labour. A party source said: “People are saying they are glad they resigned their membership, saying that we are institutionally transphobic.” The court’s decision was hailed as a victory by women’s rights campaigners, but the LGBT charity Stonewall described the judgment as “incredibly worrying for the trans community”.
From high finance to health, trans rules don’t change Sanchez Manning, Daisy Eastlake Phoebe Hennell JK Rowling celebrated the Supreme Court gender ruling with a cigar, tweeting that she loved it “when a plan comes together” Next image › In recent times it has been par for the course for all manner of organisations, public bodies, private companies, restaurants, retailers or NHS trusts, to vaunt their trans-inclusive credentials. But this week they scrambled to reassess those once-prized policies as the Supreme Court ruled a woman is not defined by their acquired gender, but by their biological sex. The question over whether those policies were now lawful became more urgent when the head of the equality watchdog, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, made it clear yesterday that anyone born male did not have a right to use female lavatories and changing rooms. But even with the concern that many trans policies may now be breaking the law in their application, the response from both the public and private sector has been notably varied. An audit by The Times has found that many, including NHS trusts, big companies and women’s charities, appear to be reaffirming their commitment to transgender people rather than changing their policies. Gemma Sherrington, chief executive of the women’s domestic abuse charity Refuge, said on Wednesday: “Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will not change the way Refuge operates. We remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women.” The chief corporate affairs officer of Lloyds Banking Group, Andrew Walton, said on LinkedIn on Wednesday, that he wanted to show “support” for the company’s trans and non-binary employees on an “unsettling day”. An internal communication from the group chief people officer at University Hospitals Tees, which runs hospitals in Hartlepool and Stockton, told staff: “I want to reach out to let you know that all members of the LGBTQ community have our support, and today in particular our trans colleagues are in our thoughts. We will urgently be working with our estates colleagues to work on solutions for unisex facilities across all our sites.” Some organisations such as the British Transport Police took immediate action in response to the judgment. It had been criticised by women’s rights groups when it issued guidance allowing transgender officers, specifically men who identify as women, to strip search women providing they have a gender recognition certificate. Yesterday, however, it said any samesex searches must be undertaken with the biological sex of the detainee. Last night Cathy Larkman, a retired police superintendent and the national policing lead for the Women’s Rights Network, was “very pleased that British Transport Police have withdrawn their disgraceful policy that allowed male officers to strip search women”. Larkman said she had received reports that in the aftermath of the Supreme Court result there had been “panic behind the scenes” at a number of police forces. “Urgent meetings have taken place at senior levels to discuss the implications of the judgment,” she said. “They have policies that effectively adopt a self ID approach to sex, that allow male officers into female changing rooms, toilets and showers, all of which will now need to be addressed.” Larkman said that at the same time a number of forces had focused on “reassuring” trans staff, giving them welfare support. “It speaks volumes that they did not consult with, or put in place any support for the female officers and staff impacted by their misogynistic polices, but instead put them in fear of losing their jobs if they dared object,” she added. Acas, which advises employers and employees on behaviour at work, also appears to be making moves to update its guidance. Julie Dennis, its head of inclusive workplace policies, said: “We will be working at pace with partners such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the government to reflect the court’s ruling in our advice.” However, the large majority are yet to commit themselves to definite changes, saying they are reviewing their policies in light of the judgment. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which has previously withdrawn guidance on strip searching which echoed the BTP approach, said it was reviewing its policies and procedures. But it insisted that it would “need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies”. The College of Policing, which issues guidance to forces, said that it would ensure all its guidelines for officers were “up to date”. The NHS has been equally reticent about making any major announcements regarding trans policies. NHS England is “currently reviewing guidance on same sex accommodation” and will take into account the ruling. The General Medical Council will “review the judgment in full and carefully consider its relevance to our policies and processes”. NHS Fife, which is embroiled in a tribunal dispute with a nurse suing the trust for harassment for having to share a changing room with a doctor who identifies as female, said it would “carefully consider the judgment and its implications.” In sport, one of most controversial areas of trans policy, the approach appears to be one of caution. Sport England said it was “now considering what the ruling means for grassroots sports and clubs”. The Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board declined to comment on the implications for their trans policies.
Court ruling on the definition of a woman Sir, The Supreme Court ruling made me happy and angry in equal measure, as someone who was constructively dismissed by the Open University for asserting that men cannot be women (“Equality policies in chaos as court defines a woman”, Apr 17). It beggars belief that so many organisations bought into the silly and solipsistic logic of Stonewall’s vision of transgender rights — that people who believe they can change sex are discriminated against or harassed if we reject their belief or if we say “no” to allowing them into our single-sex spaces. I hope that this ruling will lead, immediately, to the removal of male prisoners – even those with a gender recognition certificate — from the female prison estate. Is this an attack on trans rights? No. Women have been an historically abused and subjugated class of people. Enforcing our rights to privacy, dignity and protection from male violence is not discriminatory, it is common sense and is in keeping with the law. Jo Phoenix Professor of Criminology, University of Reading; advisory group member, Sex Matters Sir, One of the most puzzling aspects of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that a scientifically illiterate ideology became so entrenched it needed our highest court to state the obvious. If you are born with a Y (male) chromosome you will carry it with you all your days. No amount of surgery, drug treatment, selfidentification, wishful thinking or shutting down of reasoned argument will change that settled biological fact. To claim otherwise is flat-Earth territory, but many organisations went along with the fantasy all the same. How someone chooses to live their life and present themselves to the outside world is a personal decision that should be met with understanding, tolerance and respect, but not at the expense of common sense. Sir Peter Rubin Retired professor of medicine, London SW1 Sir, Your editorial (“Sanity Restored”, Apr 17) asserts the rights of trans people to live their lives in dignity. But that is now as meaningless in reality as the Supreme Court’s statement that its ruling does not diminish trans women’s protection against discrimination. Much of the exultant reaction to the ruling reminds me painfully of the homophobia that cowed me for much of my adult life. What trans person will now use a public lavatory without fear of abuse, or worse? If the government is serious about human rights it should mandate the provision of gender-neutral facilities wherever separate provision is at present made for men and women. Sir Stephen Wall London SW18 Sir, I am delighted to see that the Supreme Court has applied the test of common sense. I was horrified when it was decreed that pre-operative male offenders with a gender recognition certificate could be held in female prisons. A high percentage of these prisoners were convicted of sex offences against women, and the reality was that it was not possible to guarantee that female prisoners — many of whom had suffered abuse — could be kept safe Nick Pascoe Former Prison Service area manager; Sherborne, Dorset Sir, We told you so. Kathleen Stock Professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex 2003-21
Forward Thinking After the Supreme Court judgment defending the right of women to single-sex spaces, the effects of gender ideology in institutions must be reversed The Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act was clear and unequivocal: it is based solely on biological sex. With that single ruling, it cut through years of confected confusion, heated accusation and bureaucratic bullying from many activists who backed self-ID for trans people. They insisted that sex — and whatever rights it conferred — was something one could identify into by choice, overriding all other considerations. The court disagreed. What the ruling could not do, however, is unpick in a single day the complex web of official guidance that has grown up around that activist-driven fiction. This was enabled by the message, widely and wrongly disseminated, that women insisting on single-sex spaces based on biological sex were simply bigots. That was not a view shared by the UK’s highest court, which has effectively given its legal backing to those who argue for keeping biological men out of single-sex spaces such as changing rooms, lavatories and women’s shelters. This decisive legal halt to a trend that has dominated so much recent policy will have profound implications throughout the public sphere, not least for hospitals, prisons and sporting bodies. But for now, politicians are still struggling to articulate precisely what those implications are. When Ka- rin Smyth, the Labour health minister, was asked on Times Radio yesterday which changing room transgender women should use following the ruling, she replied bemusingly: “We need to make sure that in this discussion we are following both the law so that it is clear for women and for service providers ... this varies upon what the provision of those service providers are.” A little more clarity crept in when she was questioned elsewhere on its meaning for NHS single-sex wards: “The ruling is very clear that sex means biological sex, and ... the NHS will obviously be complying with that as every other public body will.” That will require an explicit reversal of current NHS England guidance which says that “trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”. Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has vowed to pursue organisations that do not update their policies in the light of this “very readable” judgment. The task for the authorities now is to formulate fresh policies which not only safeguard women’s rights but simultaneously protect transgender people from discrimination and harassment, as is also their right under the Equality Act. While this will be a delicate mission, the government must at least be breathing a sigh of relief that the clarity offered by the court has delivered it from arbitrating an increasingly messy argument in the public space. Politicians must not be allowed to consign their own part in this fiasco to the memory-hole, however. On both right and left, they failed to understand the broader implications of the demand for self-ID, so vociferously promoted by the Stonewall lobby group. While it was the former Conservative equalities minister Justine Greening who in 2017 first announced proposals to make it faster and easier to change gender, the Labour party proved particularly susceptible to the dictates of ideology over common sense. That resulted in surreal situations such as the hounding of the former Labour MP Rosie Duffield for stating biological reality, while a nervous Sir Keir Starmer declared it “not right” to say that only women have a cervix. Stonewall has spoken of “deep concern” at the court ruling. It would do better to examine the bitterly polarising role which it has played in this debate, damaging the interests of women and trans people alike. Yet irrationality has run its course: work must now begin to find pragmatic solutions, within the boundaries reasserted by the courts.

Daily Mail [5]
LABOUR TURMOIL ON TRANS RULING As party faces pressure to rip up gender laws, ministers are STILL in a muddle on protecting women-only spaces Daily Mail18 Apr 2025By Sam Merriman and Harriet Line LABOUR’S stance on women’s rights descended into farce last night as a minister failed to back single-sex spaces and its union paymaster said it will ignore the Supreme Court judgment. A health minister refused four times to say which changing room transgender women should use – despite the unanimous ruling that they are not legally women. And the president of one of Britain’s largest unions – which gives Labour millions of pounds a year – said the historic decision ‘does not change’ its pro-trans policy. It came as Left-wing Labour MPs and the party’s LGBT+ groups criticised the findings of the country’s highest court, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves squirmed when asked if Keir Starmer should apologise to an MP for criticising her assertion that only women have a cervix. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Labour’s failure to back single-sex spaces and its union paymaster’s ‘open hostility’ to the ruling show that claims it was pro-women’s rights were ‘completely false’. She told the Mail: ‘Women and girls will be failed by Labour again and again, as they always have been.’ Health minister Karin Smyth failed four times to clarify which changing room trans women should use in light of the Supreme Court judgment. Ms Smyth said it was ‘important that a trans woman or a trans man also has dignity in their use of public spaces’. Asked again, she told Times Radio: ‘This varies [depending] upon what the provision of those service providers are – large organisations, small organisations.’ Her comments contrasted sharply with those from the head of the equalities watchdog, who said in no uncertain terms that trans women now cannot use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports. Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) chairman Baroness Falkner said the ruling ‘does bring clarity’ for organisations on their single-sex policies and vowed to pursue those that do not enforce women-only spaces. She added: ‘Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex. If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single-sex, then it becomes a mixed-sex space.’ And asked if it was now straightforward that trans women cannot take part in women’s sport, she told BBC Radio 4: ‘Yes, it is.’ But Steve North, president of the Unison union which gave Labour more than £4 million last year said on X: ‘I want to restate my solidarity with our trans members. This judgment does not change Unison policy in support of trans rights.’ He also shared a post from one of the union’s branches that stated ‘trans women are women’ and added that any Unison members – who predominantly work in local government, education and the NHS – affected by the ruling should reach out ‘for support’. Mrs Badenoch said: ‘The flailing of Karin Smyth on the radio and the open hostility to the Supreme Court judgment from Unison, one of the Labour Party’s biggest donors, just shows that Labour’s position on this is completely false. ‘Labour doesn’t support single-sex spaces and they don’t understand the principle.’ A Labour source hit back, saying: ‘After 14 years of Tory failure to act, it’s Labour who will protect women’s spaces. We have always been crystal clear that single-sex spaces are important and that biology matters.’ It came as the Government was under growing pressure to overhaul the Equalities Act to enshrine biological sex in law. Mrs Badenoch said that ‘Labour are trying to gaslight the public and rewrite history on the Supreme Court judgment’ and called for equality laws to be rewritten to prevent this. Ms Reeves dodged questions about the court ruling and whether the Prime Minister should apologise to MP Rosie Duffield, who has said she was ‘isolated, hounded and harassed’ out of Labour for her gender-critical views. Asked whether Sir Keir should say sorry, Ms Reeves said: ‘Well, the most important thing is that we now have that clarity that is needed, so we welcome that Supreme Court ruling and the clarity that it gives to service providers and also to women.’ But Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters which provided evidence in the landmark case, said: ‘There really is no room for equivocation on this – it’s the law of the land. ‘Every government minister – and every politician from all parties – needs to understand this.’ And Caroline Ffiske, from Conservatives for Women, added: ‘It is hugely disappointing and an abdication of responsibility that the Labour Government appears to want to continue to pretend that the situation is complex.’ Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling said: ‘The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.’ The decision was the culmination of a seven-year legal fight brought by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland against the Scottish government. The court ruled that the process of awarding of a £6 Gender Recognition Certificate does not turn a biological man into a woman, meaning trans people do not get specific protections for biological women contained in the Equality Act. A Unison spokesman said: ‘The union is going through the judgment and will consider its implications for any guidance that is provided to members.’ Article Name:LABOUR TURMOIL ON TRANS RULING Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman and Harriet Line Start Page:1 End Page:1
You MUST follow the new rules, NHS told ... and we’ll take action if you do nothing, warns equalities chief Daily Mail18 Apr 2025By Shaun Wooller Health Editor THE NHS will be pursued if it does not follow new guidance on single-sex spaces, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned. Baroness Falkner, the commission’s chairman, said the health service will be receiving guidelines after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. She said: ‘We’ve been speaking to the health service for an inordinately long time – we will now be asking them when they will be updating their advice.’ The ‘Darlington Nurses’, who are taking legal action after being forced to undress in front of a transgender colleague in their hospital changing room, have also piled pressure on the NHS, saying: ‘We now need ‘We now need swift and clear action’ swift and clear action.’ Currently NHS guidance says trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their name and pronouns. But this is likely to be scrapped following the landmark ruling. The national NHS guidance on same-sex accommodation, published in September 2019, says: ‘Good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex.’ It adds: ‘Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. ‘This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.’ The guidance applies to wards, toilets and bathing facilities, it says. The EHRC says it is ‘working at pace’ to provide an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons, and it expects the updated guidance to be in place by the summer. Asked on the BBC’s Today programme whether the EHRC would pursue the NHS if it doesn’t change, Baroness Falkner said: ‘Yes, we will. We will be having those conversations with them to update that guidance.’ An NHS England spokesman said: ‘The NHS is working through the implications of the Supreme Court ruling and appreciates the need for revised guidance on samesex accommodation. While we don’t have an exact timeframe established yet, we are working closely with government to provide any further guidance for the health service as soon as possible.’ However, policies on same-sex staff changing facilities are a matter for individual trusts, which will be instructed to review their position in light of the ruling. This could have an impact on the case of the ‘Darlington Nurses’, who have taken legal action against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust on the grounds of sexual harassment and discrimination, after they were forced to undress in front of a male colleague who identifies as a woman. They say the colleague, named ‘Rose’, began using the female staff changing room at Darlington Memorial Hospital, without consultation or warning. One nurse, who experienced sexual abuse as a child, said she suffered panic attacks after Rose repeatedly asked her: ‘Are you getting changed yet?’ After 26 nurses raised concerns with HR, they were told they needed to ‘be more inclusive’, ‘compromise’, ‘broaden their mindset’ and get ‘re-educated’. They have now launched the Darlington Nursing Union, which is ‘dedicated to women’s dignity in the workplace’. Responding to Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, Bethany Hutchison, Darlington nurse and president of the nursing union, said: ‘We are delighted by the result and the clarity it brings to the Equality Act. ‘We now need swift and clear action from (Health Secretary) Wes Streeting and the NHS to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling. Front-line nurses like ourselves have been dealing with this for too long and should not have had to take the action and risks that we have. She added: ‘Illegal Stonewall-inspired policies that have allowed men to access women’s changing rooms in the NHS need to be urgently overhauled.’ Article Name:You MUST follow the new rules, NHS told Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Shaun Wooller Health Editor Start Page:6 End Page:6
Will Sir Keir end this toxic war on women? Daily Mail18 Apr 2025 THE ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court’s historic ruling that under equality law being a woman is defined by biological sex – and not a person’s subjective gender identity. That, though, should not stop the Government issuing new guidance making clear to public bodies and businesses that female-only spaces, such as changing rooms and hospital wards, must not be used by those born male – however they identify. The key question is, will Sir Keir Starmer act to make sure women are protected? Certainly, the Prime Minister now claims to be a staunch advocate of single-sex provision, but that was not always the case. It’s also troubling that some Labour MPs and the union paymasters are already muddying the waters on what is an unambiguous ruling. Indeed, one minister refused to say if female-only facilities should be out of bounds to trans women. The fact is, there are a great many people and organisations for whom trans ideology has become an article of faith. Having denounced objectors as ‘transphobes’, many will fight tooth and nail to avoiding accepting basic biological reality. To this end, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is right to call for a review of the Equality Act and Gender Recognition Act. These contradictory pieces of New Labour legislation bear huge responsibility for Britain becoming embroiled in this toxic culture war. As it stands, we are not out of the woods. Trans activists have vowed to fight on. But by acting decisively and quickly, Sir Keir could do the nation a great service by bringing this era of woke insanity to a close. Article Name:Will Sir Keir end this toxic war on women? Publication:Daily Mail Start Page:14 End Page:14

Telegraph [6]
UK’S biggest bank vows ‘solidarity’ with trans workers Lloyds says it will continue to give support to those affected by Supreme Court ruling The Daily Telegraph18 Apr 2025By Samuel Montgomery and Janet Eastham BRITAIN’S biggest bank has pledged “solidarity” with transgender staff after women’s rights campaigners scored a landmark victory in the Supreme Court. Executives at Lloyds Bank, which counts one in two British adults as a customer, backed affected employees “at this very tough time” after the court this week said that trans women are not legally women under equalities law. Businesses and public bodies across Britain have to grapple with the implications of the ruling, which means trans women will no longer be granted access to female-only spaces such as women’s bathrooms. The judgment is expected to lead to thousands of unisex lavatories being introduced in buildings across Britain, under proposed guidance considered by the Government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission watchdog (EHRC). Baroness Falkner, the chairman of the EHRC, said yesterday that trans groups “should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces”. The Lloyds comments risk drawing the bank into the row over the court’s decision, which was cheered by gender -critical activists who feared women’s rights were being eroded. Andrew Walton, the chief corporate affairs director at Lloyds, posted on the bank’s internal LGBTQ+ Rainbow network messaging board hours after the judgment. He said: “Thought I would come on here today with a note of support for our trans and non-binary colleagues on what I know will be an unsettling day following the UK Supreme Court decision. Please know that we cherish and celebrate you and we remain committed to inclusivity. “If you’re a line manager, please be mindful of the potential impact on members of your team and be available to them. We are here to listen and support.” Sharon Doherty, the chief people and places officer at Lloyds, said in response to Mr Walton’s post: “Very well said… standing in solidarity at this very tough time.” Both Mr Walton and Ms Doherty are among the most senior leaders at the bank, sitting on a 14-person executive committee. Their comments come as businesses await the EHRC’S updated code of practice for further guidance on how to respond to the judgment. Yesterday, leading barristers told The Telegraph that introducing a third, unisex lavatory is expected to be the most practical way to respect trans preferences while staying within the law. This option has now been endorsed by Sir Trevor Phillips, the former equalities watchdog chairman, who said that healthcare services should “stop whining about how difficult it is” and comply with the law. Speaking on The Daily T podcast, Sir Trevor said: “It’s very, very straightforward. They have to provide facilities for people of different sexes and those facilities have to protect people of different sexes according to biology.” However, adding a requirement to install unisex lavatories risks heaping pressure on businesses already grappling with high interest rates and looming legal threats under Labour’s planned worker protections. Lloyds Bank declined to comment. ‘Please know that we cherish and celebrate you and we remain committed to inclusivity’ FOR decades, influential charity Stonewall was widely regarded as a champion for equal rights – winning over the most powerful businesses and politicians. Its influence was such that hundreds of Britain’s largest organisations battled for top spot on its equality leader board, handing millions of pounds to the charity in the process. But much has changed. The 36-year-old organisation now facing a crisis that has prompted even one of its founders to turn against it. In the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that only biological women are women, Simon Fanshawe urged bosses to abandon Stonewall, which has long championed trans rights. “Employers can now take advice from the highest court in the land rather than from Stonewall and other lobby groups,” said Fanshawe, who was one of six activists to help set up the organisation. “Previously, in trying to become a Stonewall ‘Diversity Champion’, businesses have often gone beyond the law. “I would say that businesses should now ignore Stonewall, focus on the judgment, and that way be absolutely clear that their policies are in line with the Equality Act. “Businesses have been thinking they’ve been doing the right thing, and it transpires they haven’t. They should stop listening to lobby groups.” Scrutiny of Stonewall has been building for years, even garnering disapproval from former supporter Sir Stephen Fry, who in December branded its trans activism “nonsensical” and warned it has “got stuck in a terrible, terrible quagmire”. In particular, critics have argued that Stonewall was using corporate schemes to stifle free speech. One HR veteran, who did not want to be named, believes too many bosses leant on the charity out of fear of “holding a different position to other organisations”. “I’m surprised that any major organisation still has a relationship with them. That’s not because they haven’t done good things in the past, but they’re driving a political agenda with a small P,” they said. “From a business point of view, people will now be taking stock and saying, ‘Hang on a second, the highest court has made a decision [on the legal definition of a woman] and this organisation is disagreeing – do we want to be aligned with an organisation which is taking that stance?’” They added that HR leaders who disagree with the Supreme Court need to ask themselves how they’ve been running their businesses. “If you don’t believe the law trumps all, then you’ve essentially been running your business based on an agenda, not on the law.” Fanshawe argued last year that there had been a shift in attitude, with companies saying to themselves: “Actually, I’m not convinced that a high-street retailer should take a position on anticonversion therapy.” Concerns over Stonewall in corporate circles have grown increasingly prominent in recent years, as some of its most controversial advice came to light. For example, the charity reportedly told employers to use “parent who has given birth” instead of the word mother, while it also questioned whether private health insurance covered transition-related treatments. Stonewall has since watered down its policies, admitting last year that “mother” is a “powerful and important word”. But for many bosses the damage was already done. In 2022, Stonewall was criticised for suggesting that nurseries were not doing enough to help children as young as two “recognise their trans identity”, while last year its support of puberty blockers came under fire following a review by paediatrician Baroness Cass. The review, which warned there was a lack of established medical evidence for the use of puberty blockers for children, triggered a petition calling for Stonewall’s former chief, who advised schools to “shred” a research pack highlighting the dangers of the treatment, to lose her peerage. Yet Stonewall itself acknowledges that change may be on the cards, particularly in light of the latest Supreme Court decision. A spokesman for the charity said that many organisations, including Stonewall, will be reviewing their policies and guidance. “Stonewall regularly reviews its guidance and works with legal experts to ensure that it reflects the latest legal developments – we will continue to do so.” Emilie Cole, the founding partner of law firm Cole Khan, said: “The decision recognises that women now means biological women. So women are going to be protected in terms of having their spaces. It’s been so hard fought on both sides of the spectrum, but this judgment is welcomed because this has… got real-world consequences for people working in businesses, and clarity in this area is welcomed.” But others are not as conciliatory. As one barrister puts it: “Those who follow Stonewall should stop doing so immediately and seek counsel elsewhere. You have been led up the garden path and now have a huge task untangling the mess.” ‘If you don’t believe the law trumps all, you’ve been running your business on an agenda’ ‘You have been led up the garden path and now have a huge task untangling the mess’ Article Name:UK’S biggest bank vows ‘solidarity’ with trans workers Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Samuel Montgomery and Janet Eastham Start Page:1 End Page:1
The cancelled gender-critical women owed an apology The Daily Telegraph18 Apr 2025By Fiona Parker SENIOR NEWS REPORTER FOR years, those who stood up to the mob and criticised transgender ideology risked cancellation. None who dared to voice their doubts about the Left-wing dogma were safe from the fury of the trans lobby. From best-selling authors such as JK Rowling, to world-class athletes like Martina Navratilova and academics like Prof Kathleen Stock, those who spoke out risked their reputations and their careers. But following the Supreme Court ruling that sex is rooted in biology and that trans women are legally not women, many are likely to feel that they are owed an apology. Rowling’s 2020 essay criticised an article with a headline saying “people who menstruate” provoking a fierce debate on sex and gender. On Wednesday, she shared a photograph of herself enjoying a cigar on her superyacht with the caption: “I love it when a plan comes together.” Prof Stock was hounded out of her job in the philosophy department at the University of Sussex in 2021 after making statements such as “‘trans women are women’ is fiction, not literally true”. The university was fined £585,000 for failing to uphold free speech. Sharron Davies, a former British swimmer, said she had been dropped by charities and agents as a result of her insistence that trans women should not be allowed to compete in female categories. Navratilova, an 18-time Grand Slam winner, was dropped by LGBT group Athlete Ally after she criticised The New York Times for using the term “non-transgender women” to describe biological women. In the world of politics, Rosie Duffield, the former Labour MP, faced violent death threats for her gender views. Internet troll Glenn Mullen walked free with two suspended sentences after posting messages in which he threatened to kill Rowling and Duffield. Lord Young, of the Free Speech Union (FSU), said few of those who speak out are public figures. “Nearly all are just ordinary women.” Sharron Davies If based on the IOC guidelines, the sporting world changes its rules prematurely and transwomen are found to unfairly dominate, it will be to the detriment of sport, women and the Olympics Article Name:The cancelled gender-critical women owed an apology Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Fiona Parker SENIOR NEWS REPORTER Start Page:5 End Page:5
Labour trans school rule thrown into chaos The Daily Telegraph18 Apr 2025By Poppy Wood EDUCATION EDITOR THE Government has been urged to clarify how this week’s Supreme Court ruling will affect single-sex schools as ministers were accused of “ducking the issue”. The UK’S highest court ruled on Wednesday that the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. This means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”. The ruling does not directly impact pupils, since GRCS are only available to people aged 18 and over, but experts said it was likely to have consequences for school admissions policies. Philip Wood, a specialist in education law at Browne Jacobson, said the ruling confirmed the laws around “direct discrimination as well as indirect discrimination, which is helpful to single-sex schools”. Under current laws, single-sex schools have a specific exemption in the Equality Act relating to sex, but that exemption doesn’t cover gender reassignment, according to Mr Wood. It has resulted in a grey area around whether an all-girls school, for example, would be able to turn down a transgender teenager who was born a boy. Mr Wood said that while the Supreme Court decision did not directly impact single-sex school admissions, it still meant that if “a transgender male (but biologically female) pupil who was seeking admission to a boys’ school but was refused,” they would be treated the same in any direct discrimination claim as “a female pupil who was not trans”. “Assuming the reason for the school’s refusal was not about gender reassignment, but instead the sex of the pupil, we cannot see that a claim would succeed,” he said. But the education lawyer added it was “an untested area of law,” and Government guidance would need to spell out how admissions policies would work in practice. The Tories unveiled draft guidance in October 2023 that aimed to clear up the law around admissions policies for transgender pupils, but Labour is still deciding whether to implement it. The proposed Department for Education (DFE) guidance said “single-sex schools … can refuse to admit pupils of the other biological sex, regardless of whether the child is questioning their gender”. It added that “a school cannot… refuse to admit a child of the same biological sex on the basis that they are questioning their gender”. Labour is widely expected to water down the proposed guidance after Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, refused to commit to implementing it. It is unclear whether this week’s Supreme Court decision will prompt a rethink, or if it will affect the Government’s promise to unveil guidance before the summer holidays. Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said: “Yesterday’s ruling makes it clear, biological sex matters in law. The Conservatives have always defended this principle, while Labour has ducked the issue. “The Government must now stop dragging their feet and get on with delivering clear, firm guidance for schools, particularly single-sex schools, involving parents fully in decisions affecting their children and putting facts and children’s safeguarding first.” A number of private girls’ schools said they would be consulting lawyers over the changes when they return from the Easter holidays next week. Leading education figures called for transparency over how the Supreme Court ruling would affect issues such as transgender pupils’ participation in sports. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said the organisation “has been contacted by teachers concerned about the implications for them and for the pupils they teach” since Wednesday’s ruling. “The implications of the legal judgment will need to be considered carefully, and it is vital that the Government provides clarity and guidance to schools and colleges as quickly as possible,” he said. Schools are legally required to provide sex-separated toilets for pupils aged 8 or over and suitable changing rooms and showers for those aged 11 years or over. But their other legal obligations are unclear. As part of their proposed guidance for gender-questioning children, the previous government called for a ban on pupils being taught about gender identity in schools. Ms Phillipson declined to answer whether she would keep or rip up the Tories’ guidance when asked about it ahead of the general election last year, and said parts of it “drifted far too much into partisan and unnecessary language”. A government spokesman said: “It’s vital that we ensure young people, no matter their background, can access the opportunities to thrive. “That’s why schools are required to comply with their safeguarding duties and make arrangements which protect the privacy, dignity and safety of all pupils.” ‘The Conservatives have always defended this principle, while Labour has ducked the issue’ Article Name:Labour trans school rule thrown into chaos Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Poppy Wood EDUCATION EDITOR Start Page:5 End Page:5
UK’S biggest bank vows ‘solidarity’ with trans workers Lloyds says it will continue to give support to those affected by Supreme Court ruling The Daily Telegraph18 Apr 2025By Samuel Montgomery and Janet Eastham BRITAIN’S biggest bank has pledged “solidarity” with transgender staff after women’s rights campaigners scored a landmark victory in the Supreme Court. Executives at Lloyds Bank, which counts one in two British adults as a customer, backed affected employees “at this very tough time” after the court this week said that trans women are not legally women under equalities law. Businesses and public bodies across Britain have to grapple with the implications of the ruling, which means trans women will no longer be granted access to female-only spaces such as women’s bathrooms. The judgment is expected to lead to thousands of unisex lavatories being introduced in buildings across Britain, under proposed guidance considered by the Government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission watchdog (EHRC). Baroness Falkner, the chairman of the EHRC, said yesterday that trans groups “should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces”. The Lloyds comments risk drawing the bank into the row over the court’s decision, which was cheered by gender -critical activists who feared women’s rights were being eroded. Andrew Walton, the chief corporate affairs director at Lloyds, posted on the bank’s internal LGBTQ+ Rainbow network messaging board hours after the judgment. He said: “Thought I would come on here today with a note of support for our trans and non-binary colleagues on what I know will be an unsettling day following the UK Supreme Court decision. Please know that we cherish and celebrate you and we remain committed to inclusivity. “If you’re a line manager, please be mindful of the potential impact on members of your team and be available to them. We are here to listen and support.” Sharon Doherty, the chief people and places officer at Lloyds, said in response to Mr Walton’s post: “Very well said… standing in solidarity at this very tough time.” Both Mr Walton and Ms Doherty are among the most senior leaders at the bank, sitting on a 14-person executive committee. Their comments come as businesses await the EHRC’S updated code of practice for further guidance on how to respond to the judgment. Yesterday, leading barristers told The Telegraph that introducing a third, unisex lavatory is expected to be the most practical way to respect trans preferences while staying within the law. This option has now been endorsed by Sir Trevor Phillips, the former equalities watchdog chairman, who said that healthcare services should “stop whining about how difficult it is” and comply with the law. Speaking on The Daily T podcast, Sir Trevor said: “It’s very, very straightforward. They have to provide facilities for people of different sexes and those facilities have to protect people of different sexes according to biology.” However, adding a requirement to install unisex lavatories risks heaping pressure on businesses already grappling with high interest rates and looming legal threats under Labour’s planned worker protections. Lloyds Bank declined to comment. ‘Please know that we cherish and celebrate you and we remain committed to inclusivity’ FOR decades, influential charity Stonewall was widely regarded as a champion for equal rights – winning over the most powerful businesses and politicians. Its influence was such that hundreds of Britain’s largest organisations battled for top spot on its equality leader board, handing millions of pounds to the charity in the process. But much has changed. The 36-year-old organisation now facing a crisis that has prompted even one of its founders to turn against it. In the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that only biological women are women, Simon Fanshawe urged bosses to abandon Stonewall, which has long championed trans rights. “Employers can now take advice from the highest court in the land rather than from Stonewall and other lobby groups,” said Fanshawe, who was one of six activists to help set up the organisation. “Previously, in trying to become a Stonewall ‘Diversity Champion’, businesses have often gone beyond the law. “I would say that businesses should now ignore Stonewall, focus on the judgment, and that way be absolutely clear that their policies are in line with the Equality Act. “Businesses have been thinking they’ve been doing the right thing, and it transpires they haven’t. They should stop listening to lobby groups.” Scrutiny of Stonewall has been building for years, even garnering disapproval from former supporter Sir Stephen Fry, who in December branded its trans activism “nonsensical” and warned it has “got stuck in a terrible, terrible quagmire”. In particular, critics have argued that Stonewall was using corporate schemes to stifle free speech. One HR veteran, who did not want to be named, believes too many bosses leant on the charity out of fear of “holding a different position to other organisations”. “I’m surprised that any major organisation still has a relationship with them. That’s not because they haven’t done good things in the past, but they’re driving a political agenda with a small P,” they said. “From a business point of view, people will now be taking stock and saying, ‘Hang on a second, the highest court has made a decision [on the legal definition of a woman] and this organisation is disagreeing – do we want to be aligned with an organisation which is taking that stance?’” They added that HR leaders who disagree with the Supreme Court need to ask themselves how they’ve been running their businesses. “If you don’t believe the law trumps all, then you’ve essentially been running your business based on an agenda, not on the law.” Fanshawe argued last year that there had been a shift in attitude, with companies saying to themselves: “Actually, I’m not convinced that a high-street retailer should take a position on anticonversion therapy.” Concerns over Stonewall in corporate circles have grown increasingly prominent in recent years, as some of its most controversial advice came to light. For example, the charity reportedly told employers to use “parent who has given birth” instead of the word mother, while it also questioned whether private health insurance covered transition-related treatments. Stonewall has since watered down its policies, admitting last year that “mother” is a “powerful and important word”. But for many bosses the damage was already done. In 2022, Stonewall was criticised for suggesting that nurseries were not doing enough to help children as young as two “recognise their trans identity”, while last year its support of puberty blockers came under fire following a review by paediatrician Baroness Cass. The review, which warned there was a lack of established medical evidence for the use of puberty blockers for children, triggered a petition calling for Stonewall’s former chief, who advised schools to “shred” a research pack highlighting the dangers of the treatment, to lose her peerage. Yet Stonewall itself acknowledges that change may be on the cards, particularly in light of the latest Supreme Court decision. A spokesman for the charity said that many organisations, including Stonewall, will be reviewing their policies and guidance. “Stonewall regularly reviews its guidance and works with legal experts to ensure that it reflects the latest legal developments – we will continue to do so.” Emilie Cole, the founding partner of law firm Cole Khan, said: “The decision recognises that women now means biological women. So women are going to be protected in terms of having their spaces. It’s been so hard fought on both sides of the spectrum, but this judgment is welcomed because this has… got real-world consequences for people working in businesses, and clarity in this area is welcomed.” But others are not as conciliatory. As one barrister puts it: “Those who follow Stonewall should stop doing so immediately and seek counsel elsewhere. You have been led up the garden path and now have a huge task untangling the mess.” ‘If you don’t believe the law trumps all, you’ve been running your business on an agenda’ ‘You have been led up the garden path and now have a huge task untangling the mess’ Article Name:UK’S biggest bank vows ‘solidarity’ with trans workers Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Samuel Montgomery and Janet Eastham Start Page:5 End Page:5
Labour must not bow to trans activists The Daily Telegraph18 Apr 2025 The Supreme Court’s ruling that trans women are not legally women has saved British lawmakers a great deal of embarrassment. The alternative would have left our state amid the ignominious ranks of those authorities which have attempted to redefine reality by fiat, including the Indiana General Assembly which once considered passing a bill implying the value of pi to be 3.2. Naturally, however, this brief outbreak of common sense is already meeting with fierce resistance from the trans lobbyists who wish to dictate to the rest of society the manner in which they should be treated, and there appears to be a real risk that what should be a victory for women’s rights will be squandered by the Labour Party. When questioned about the implications of the judgment, a Government minister was willing to state that “female changing rooms should be used by women”, but was unable to then state which facilities would be appropriate for trans women. Baroness Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), meanwhile, was clear that access to single-sex spaces should be determined on biological grounds. There is, however, every possibility that this will simply result in a further absurd shuffling of requirements as organisations seek to avoid the ire of vocally unpleasant trans activists. One way to square the circle, for instance, would be to simply do away with female facilities entirely, providing gender neutral ones as a default. While Labour sources insist that Sir Keir Starmer has “moved the party” to a “serious, sensible” position that “protected women’s spaces while allowing for respectful debate”, those who have followed the tone and volume of that debate will be aware of just how much this statement omits. It seems eminently possible that attempts by activists to exert pressure on the Labour Party will once again bear fruit. As things stand, the EHRC has already submitted a revised code of conduct for the public sector which will protect single-sex spaces and update the law to reflect more than a decade’s worth of legal argument. This will now become an early test for the Government: will Sir Keir and his colleagues assent to these changes, or seek to muddy the waters? It does not take a great leap of imagination to see the Labour Party making poorly thought-out additions which would partly unwind the effects of this ruling. This outcome must be avoided, and this rare piece of judicial sanity preserved. Article Name:Labour must not bow to trans activists Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:17 End Page:17

Saturday Total: 14

The Guardian [2]
JK Rowling How author became campaign’s most vocal supporter The Guardian19 Apr 2025Caroline Davies JK Rowling PHOTOGRAPH: JONNY BIRCH/GETTY IMAGES ‘Erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of so many to meaningfully discuss their lives’ JK Rowling at the Baftas in 2017, two years before she went public with her gender-critical views, to the dismay of some Cocktail in hand and puffing on a celebratory cigar onboard her superyacht, reportedly somewhere in the Bahamas, JK Rowling greeted this week’s supreme court ruling that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, by taking to social media. “I love it when a plan comes together,” she posted on X, borrowing the famous catchphrase from the popular 1980s TV series, The A-Team. She added, referencing the bitter and polarised gender identification debate: “To those celebrating the fact that I’m smoking a blunt [a type of joint]: it’s a cigar. Even if it decided to identify as a blunt for the purposes of this celebration, it would remain objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar.” It was a typical response from the 59-year-old multi-millionaire creator of the iconic Harry Potter franchise, who has over recent years regularly utilised social media in her support of womenonly spaces, and who has been a vocal and financial supporter of For Women Scotland, having donated £70,000 to the group’s crowdfunding for the legal challenge that culminated in Wednesday’s ruling. The journey has seen her publicly evolve into a fearless figurehead for gender-critical campaigners; someone willing to have battles on X in particular, where she fights fire with fire, and seemingly cannot be cowed. Supporters will say Rowling’s financial contribution has been important, though point out the lesser sums donated by hundreds of other women to the crowdfunding were equally so. Her vocal support, however, has been of even greater consequence. They praise her doggedness, her clear-sightedness as an uncompromising feminist. She is, they believe, strategic. Detractors are highly vocal in accusing her of transphobia, of using provocative language. They question her claims about numbers of people detransitioning. She has been labelled a Terf (trans– exclusionary radical feminist). She denies she is transphobic, having said she respects “every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them”. Rowling’s first public foray came in December 2019 when she tweeted support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex. Then, in June 2020, Rowling posted a link to an article headlined “Creating a more equal post-Covid-19 world for people who menstruate”, to which she commented: “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” She added: “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of so many to meaningfully discuss their lives.” The furore that followed led her to post an essay on her website outlining her concerns over “the new trans activism”. She described herself as a “domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor” who had been “triggered” by learning the Scottish government was “proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans”. She said she had spoken up about the importance of sex “and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death.” The backlash against her included Harry Potter actors Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, making public their support for transgender rights. There were reports of bookburnings. Rowling returned her Ripple of Hope award given to her by the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights organisation after its president, Kennedy’s daughter, criticised her transgender views. Quidditch, the actual sport inspired by the fictional Harry Potter announced in 2022 it was changing its name to Quadball, with one of several reasons being that Rowling had “increasingly come under scrutiny for her antitrans positions”, the International Quidditch Association said. Rowling is a serious philanthropist. She supports a wide range of humanitarian causes through her charitable trust Volant, including charities working with women and children, and donated £10m to set up a world-leading research and treatment centre for multiple sclerosis in Scotland founded in the name of her mother, who died from the disease. In 2022, she funded and co-founded Beria’s Place, a sexual violence support service for women in Edinburgh. If she has had concerns of any impact on her commercial success, she has not expressed them. She bats off any suggestions from fans that she has “ruined” her legacy, telling one podcast they “could not have misunderstood me more profoundly”. “What a pompous way to live your life, walking around thinking, what will my legacy be? I’ll be dead. I care about now. I care about the living.” Article Name:JK Rowling Publication:The Guardian Author:Caroline Davies Start Page:9 End Page:9
The Times [4]
Trans runners in Parkrun ‘not fair to women’ Sanchez Manning Claire Hallissey, an Olympian, was beaten by a transgender woman in a Parkrun. Next image › Campaigners have called on Parkrun to scrap its “unfair” transgender policy, which allowed a trans woman to finish first in the female category in nearly 60 of its Saturday-morning 5km runs. The same trans woman once finished ahead of a former British Olympian. Women’s rights groups say that the organisers must take action to comply with this week’s Supreme Court ruling, which said that women were defined by their biological sex and not an “acquired gender”. Parkrun participants can take part as the gender they identify as rather than as their biological sex. As a result men who self-identify as women, regardless of whether they have had any physical changes, are allowed to take part as women. This policy has caused controversy as critics say trans women have been allowed to “smash” female records and push women down the rankings. Activists were outraged in 2023 when it emerged that Parkrun’s women’s record in Wales was held by Lauren Jeska, a trans woman who had been jailed in 2017 for attempting to murder a UK Athletics official. Jeska’s time of 17 minutes 38 seconds at the Aberystwyth Parkrun in 2012 was two and a half minutes slower than the first male finisher at that event. Mara Yamauchi, a former Olympic marathon runner, said that in 2023 another trans runner, Sian Longthorpe, “smashed to smithereens” by one minute and 13 seconds a women’s Parkrun record in the age 45-49 category. Yamauchi tweeted that a third trans woman had finished first in the female category almost 60 times in the past 18 months. She said that the participant, who she chose not to name, had previously been registered with Parkrun as a man, but had finished first in 56 events in the women’s category. Records show that this year Claire Hallissey, a marathon runner who was a member of the GB squad for the London Olympics alongside Yamauchi and Paula Radcliffe, finished after the trans athlete at a Parkrun. Yamauchi said: “The Supreme Court ruling is unequivocal and unanimous in stating that women are defined by their biological sex. Currently Parkrun allows males in the female category. This is unfair against women and girls and Parkrun will be the first experience of organised sport for many women and girls. To be bumped down the finish order and told to make way for males is a terrible message.” Fiona McAnena, the director of Sex Matters, a campaign group, said: “It’s never been ‘inclusive’ to allow male runners to claim women’s places and records. Now Parkrun has no excuse to continue to discriminate against women by letting men register as female.” UK Athletics has moved to ban trans women from competing in female categories after the UK’s four sports councils published guidance that concluded it was impossible to balance “transgender inclusion, fairness and safety in gender-affected sport where there is meaningful competition”. Parkrun has so far refused to follow the sports governing body’s lead, insisting that its focus is participation rather than competition. Its guidance states that categorising people based on gender rather than sex “is aligned with us as a health and wellbeing charity that provides non-competitive socially focused physical activity, and allows people to identify in the way they feel most appropriate and comfortable”. Parkrun was approached for comment.
Mumsnet ‘put in danger by bigotry claim’ Sanchez Manning - Social Affairs Correspondent The founder of Mumsnet said she feared for the parenting site’s survival after it was branded “bigoted” and blacklisted by major businesses over its stance on trans issues. Justine Roberts spoke out after Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling that the legal definition of a “woman” relates to biological sex, in a challenge brought by For Women Scotland. In an online post on Thursday, Roberts said Mumsnet had been through “severely testing times” and faced accusations it was “on the wrong side of history” over views expressed on trans issues on the site. She said Barclays and Ocado had refused to advertise or partner with the online forum after it called on the government to clarify the definition of a woman in equality legislation. Yesterday a spokeswoman for Ocado apologised “unreservedly” to Mumsnet. Roberts said that despite the intense pressure from activists, she never thought of banning discussions on the controversial issue. She wrote: “A fair number of organisations pulled their advertising under pressure from activists — both internal and external. I’m sure there were many more we never heard from who simply steered clear. “Commercial partnerships became noticeably harder to secure.” She added: “Nonetheless, even in the darkest moments, when I feared the site might not survive, we never considered banning discussion of this issue altogether.” A spokeswoman for Ocado said: “These comments are not representative of us as a company, and we believe they were made by a temporary contractor who is no longer with the business.” Barclays was contacted for comment.
Let’s not downplay this triumph for women Fight for ‘woman’ to be ruled biological has been long and bitter: we won’t forget our allies and opponents along the way Janice Turner @victoriapeckham Janice Turner Don’t be triumphalist, stay magnanimous in victory, be kind. It took a decade for women to reverse an illegal land grab of our rights. Ten years during which every civil society group turned its back, women lost jobs and livelihoods, were vilified, ostracised and risked violence. Now we’re just supposed to move on? We will, of course. Because the women outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday never sought this fight. They were human rights lawyers, feminists, leftie journalists, charity stalwarts or family carers used to putting others first. They were neither driven by animus against LGBTQ+ people — many are lesbians — nor on a moral quest. We had a billion better things to do but just could not stay silent when so much was at stake. So yes, we will move on. Gladly! But before the memory hole sucks away a time of collective madness, when lesbians had penises, rapists were banged up in women’s jails, disabled women were bigots for wanting samesex intimate care, when we were expected to applaud men who stole our sports and welcome bearded dudes “expanding the bandwidth of womanhood” into our changing rooms, let’s set the record straight. First, the cowards. After the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 were biological terms, up pops Harriet Harman, architect of that very law to say, of course, that’s what she always meant. Well, Harriet, why didn’t you say so before, when Stonewall, having failed to rewrite the law, tried to change the meaning of words? But I suppose you risked being branded a “Terf”. Best wait until the dust settles, and you’re safely Baroness Harman of Peckham, chair of the Fawcett Society, that meltiest chocolate teapot. Yes, Yvette Cooper, I recall your frozen terror when I suggested, years ago, you make public your concerns about child medical transition. Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy, we can’t forget — whatever you say now — that in 2020 you signed a 12-point pledge promising to boot out Labour members who believed sex is real. As for the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, who has “always” supported single-sex spaces, you whipped your party to support self-ID in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which would have erased every one. Then there are the pontificating men who, never listening much to women, naturally sympathised with the male-born and relished our witch trials. Men who had nothing — nothing! — to lose yet never once tried to understand our plight. Rory Stewart, Alastair Campbell, David Lammy, James O’Brien, Billy Bragg, David Tennant, John Oliver, or those who, watching the Paris Olympics, thought a male boxer punching women was less hurtful than calling him a man. Next, the fools, the Tory women fleeing the “nasty party” taint. Caroline Nokes, who voted against same-sex marriage; Theresa May, who abstained; and the expenses scandal pariah Maria Miller, who saw in uncritical, unthinking support for Stonewall’s self-ID plan the hope of easy applause. Thus sparking the war of rights that has left us here with hard new lines drawn, back talking about toilets when — apart from in schools — it was never about that. Supreme Court has finally clarified what we all knew all along For decades, women had no issue with trans women, who’d mainly undergone full surgical transition, using the ladies. We saw them and said nothing, because we are indeed kind and knew they were just quietly living their lives. But self-ID and Stonewall’s “acceptance without exception” campaign demanded anyone in their “trans umbrella”, including male fetishists who filmed themselves masturbating at the mirrors, had a right to be there. And we had no right to object because, as Stonewall’s then CEO, Ruth Hunt, put it, “men will always rape women”, so why fuss about safeguards? A delicate rights ecosystem, a benign rubbing along, the natural empathy between feminists and gender non-conforming men, were all smashed. Women asking to discuss how self-ID would affect their rights were screamed down, meetings attacked by violent, balaclava-clad protesters, bashing windows and letting off smoke bombs. Meanwhile, on the BBC and elsewhere, trans activists were fêted as saints. Now the Supreme Court has done what politicians dared not, clarifying what we all knew all along: sex means biology. Women’s stolen rights must be returned. The NHS must settle disgraceful cases in Darlington and Fife of female nurses forced to undress with biological men. The FA, the England and Wales Cricket Board and even community sporting bodies such as Parkrun will have to keep all males out of female categories. (Because amateur women deserve their records and victories, as much as men.) Police and the media can stop referring to stubbly “trans” sex offenders as women. Yes, there is a mess and as always women are expected to clear it up, even though we proposed the compromise solutions — third spaces in loos and changing rooms, open sporting categories — a decade ago. Trans activists rejected them then because they flouted their mantra that trans women are women. They wasted millions in public funds trying to destroy female spaces and services rather than create their own. Maybe Stonewall, which didn’t even bother to intervene on behalf of trans people in the Supreme Court, will do some actual work. Meanwhile, those who risked everything to say women are adult human females can read this irreducible, scientific truth in an 88-page court judgment and on every front page. Corporations and government bodies will gratefully return to normality, though the Japanese knotweed of gender ideology is deep in their foundations. Soon the collective memory of this crazy, unnecessary, painful struggle will fade. Women aren’t expecting apologies, though many are deserved, or gratitude for saving basic rights for our granddaughters. Yes, we’ll be kind — we always were — but, cheers! We won — deal with it.
‘It will take decades to undo the damage from the trans movement’ The legal ruling on the meaning of ‘woman’ was a vindication for Graham Linehan, the comedy writer, but the scars persist, he tells Andrew Billen Susan Smith and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland, which brought the case, outside the Supreme Court. Next image › It was when Lord Hodge explained that the Supreme Court had used biology to assemble its legal definition of what a woman was that Graham Linehan dared to hope victory might be coming to the cause that had cost him his family and career. “You could feel a crackle around the room,” says the Father Ted co-creator turned anti-trans activist, who was in the public gallery for Wednesday’s epic ruling. “It was a lovely thing to experience. And then, as soon as the judges left, the whole place just broke out in applause.” Shortly after 10am the former stand-up whose savage wit as directed towards trans activists had alienated many even on his side (was this, feminists asked, his battle to fight?) emerged into Parliament Square to the cheers of women. “It was,” he says from a friend’s house the next day, “one of the nicest things that’s ever happened to me.” On Thursday one front-page headline read simply “Trans women are not women”, the exact phrase that had got Linehan banned from Twitter, further, he says, destroying his reputation. “To see it on a newspaper headline — it felt like reality was breaking out.” Afterwards he celebrated with fellow campaigners. A photo on X, to which — under Elon Musk’s management — he had been restored, showed him raising a glass with Venice Allan, a campaigner against trans women swimming in the Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath. Jet-lagged from travelling from the United States, where he is relocating, he went to bed at a reasonable hour but got up at 2am. By noon on Zoom he is a little blurry, but not so blurry that he cannot focus on the clarity of the Supreme Court ruling. He compares it to the murky language of the trans debate, where the very words “trans woman” could baffle. “A good way of understanding the word ‘trans’ is taking it to mean opposite. So ‘trans woman’ means man and ‘trans man’ means woman. That kind of oppositional language has been a major weapon for trans activists. They used language in such a way that people felt they were on unsteady ground. They couldn’t argue their points. The language was just so corrupted.” He compares the huge increase in numbers of transgender people with the epidemic of anorexia after the singer Karen Carpenter died of it in 1983. “It just spread like wildfire, most particularly amongst young girls who are particularly susceptible to this kind of obsessive, harmful thinking about their own bodies. I think that the trans movement for young girls has been a kind of anorexia 2.0. But the difference is that in the Seventies and Eighties people were very rightly saying, ‘No, you’re not fat. This is just a thought in your head and we need to work on that.’ But with the trans issue, the whole of society was saying [the equivalent of], ‘Yes, you are fat. It’s a problem.’ Everyone was saying this, from celebrities to the NHS. And, of course, the internet spread it like Covid. It’s been ten years really, trying to get back to a place of normalcy in regards to women’s rights and it’s going to take decades to undo the damage.” He does think the fight to preserve women’s singlesex spaces in public lavatories, changing rooms and women’s sport is probably won but argues that the toll on the health of biological girls who took gender-altering hormones and on biological boys prescribed oestrogen will persist. While fewer people will be fired for holding gendercritical views, the protrans bias will persist in television, theatre and publishing “because those areas are heavily captured”. On this he is an expert witness. In 2018, coming round in hospital from an operation for testicular cancer, he woozily tweeted something he cannot quite recall about transgender people. Someone immediately responded that they wished the cancer had won. Within months, the Irish-born scriptwriter responsible for The IT Crowd and co-creator of Black Books could no longer get work. A stage musical of Father Ted, his surrealist 1995 sitcom co-created with Arthur Matthews about priests on an Irish island, stalled, its producers suggesting he quit the trans wars. When he refused, explaining he was fighting to defend his teenage daughter, they offered him £200,000 to walk away, conditional on removing his name from the project (aside from a credit as the sitcom’s co-creator). The show was abandoned. By then he had attracted legal threats from trans activists and a visit from the police warning him not to contact a pro-trans GP. He was prescribed anti-anxiety drugs; his hands developed a shake. In 2020 his 16-year marriage to the comedy writer Helen Serafinowicz ended. He said the pressure — the legal threats, the money worries — simply got too much for her. From the family home in Norwich he moved to a flat in the London docklands, from where he reverted to his original profession, journalism. His Glinner Update on Substack reported the trans wars but with only 3,000 subscribers made a loss. “I think,” he says, “this whole thing has been a failure of the celebrity class. They didn’t even have to defend me. They only had to defend their daughters, and they never did. “I just don’t understand how friends could allow another friend to lose all his income, all his friends and then just forget about him.” Naturally, he blames the “toxicity” of the debate on the pro-trans lobby, its “violent” reaction to scrutiny. However, his own social media contributions are incendiary. He confesses he has even been “a bit bad” over the past few days. On the other hand, if someone posts “how’s the wife?” and it is a “young girl with a beard”, he lets it go because he knows what medically is in store for them. “It’s not trans people I have a problem with. It’s trans activists.” But does he feel any sympathy for a trans person who had undergone treatment, and perhaps surgery, only now to find their gender recognition certificate effectively worthless? “Well, I guess so but it’s just one of those things that should never have happened in the first place,” he replies, reciting the dangers of hormone therapy and the “lie” that puberty blockers are reversible. “I do have sympathy for them but I don’t have sympathy for the people who lied to them. They’re the ones who I really, really hate.” Two years ago, in the depths of his war, I interviewed Linehan near his London home. He says now that his years there were not as depressing as I imagined them. A neighbour, the writer Polly Clark, befriended him and “saved my life”. Getting to know doctors, nurses and social workers broadened his world. But although Nicola Sturgeon’s policy of locking Scottish trans women in women’s jails was already falling apart in early 2023, he was gloomy when I suggested the tide was turning. A year later the Cass review on children’s gender identity services recommended extreme caution in using hormone treatment on under- 18s, and the Tavistock Clinic’s gender and identity service closed. Now comes the Supreme Court judgment. He agrees there is a sea change, but says that the media is still “captured”. For him too life has changed, and for the better. There remain worries: he is crowdfunding a defence to a libel action and was recently interviewed under caution by police after a skirmish with a trans activist who he claims was harassing him. But he gets on “great” with his children, and his Substack now makes him “a fair living”. Visas permitting, he has a job in Phoenix, Arizona — where he is starting a production company with the Northern Irish satirist and journalist Andrew Doyle and the Saturday Night Live alumnus Rob Schneider. Both are antiwoke warriors, but he promises that the sitcom they are working on will be merely “unwoke”. “I don’t want to do antiwoke comedy because I think it will age just as badly as the woke movement. I think that in a few years, phrases like ‘trans women are women’ are going to go the same way as ‘groovy’ you know?” What if Jimmy Mulville of Hat Trick Productions, which made Father Ted, now rang and said the musical could go ahead with his name on it? Linehan says he would also need a public apology for what he was put through: “It was inexcusable.”
Daily Mail [4]
The 51 gender identities criminals allowed to use They’re gaslighting us when they should be apologising to all those women who dared to speak out Daily Mail19 Apr 2025By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent SARAH VINE Celebration: Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland TERRORISTS and paedophiles have been allowed to call themselves by 51 gender identities, which appear on a Home Office database of Britain’s most dangerous criminals. Police chiefs have admitted that ‘no formal risk assessment’ was carried out before recording extremists and rapists as ‘androgyne’ and ‘pangender’. The list of obscure gender identities has been labelled ‘madness’ and the Home Secretary has been warned that failure to properly record criminals’ sex poses a risk to the public. It comes after a landmark Supreme Court ruling this week that ‘woman’ and ‘man’ refer to biological sex and that ‘the concept of sex is binary’, with any other interpretation ‘incoherent and impracticable’. Police forces will be expected to record criminals’ sex rather than their preferred gender, meaning rapists will no longer be able to identify as women. Last night Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said it showed police chiefs were ‘more interested in woke nonsense than arresting criminals’. He told the Mail: ‘Gender identity is irrelevant to a system that’s sole focus should be on protecting the public and tracking dangerous people. This is a recipe for operational failure.’ The Home Office has admitted that the database – which was updated in 2022 to add the ‘gender identity’ category – is ‘outdated’ and said a new system for tracking offenders is being developed. The list of gender identities includes ‘pangender’, ‘transgender person’ and terms such as ‘androgyne’ and ‘neutrois’. The database has several categories with the same meaning – such as ‘cis male’ and ‘cis man’ – because offenders have provided different answers or officials have recorded them in inconsistent ways. They are recorded in the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) database, a Home Office system used to track the most dangerous offenders after release. The Ministry of Justice says that ViSOR is used by police, the prison service and probation officers to ‘manage the risks posed by individuals convicted of serious violent, sexual and terrorism offences living in the community in order to protect the public’. Maya Forstater, of human rights charity Sex Matters, said allowing criminals to be recorded as bizarre genders wasted police time and taxpayers’ money and ‘makes a mockery of the justice system’. ‘There is no justification for this foolishness,’ she added. ‘Police forces should focus on solving crime and keeping the public safe. The Home Secretary should bring down the curtain on this farce.’ The list of ViSOR gender identities, obtained through a Freedom of Information request, includes 20 different ‘trans’ identities. Criminals can also identify as ‘gender fluid’ – which means they can change their gender depending on how they are feeling – genderqueer, or simply as ‘other’. Androgyne refers to a person who is ‘simultaneously a man and a woman or in between the two’. Three terrorists were recorded in 2023 as ‘gender fluid or non-binary’ rather than male or female, separate Ministry of Justice data shows. A government-commissioned review found last month that official statistics have become ‘corrupted’ by extreme gender ideology, with the conflation of sex and gender now ‘widespread’. The Sullivan Review revealed that many police forces record crimes committed by biological men as though they were committed by women ‘at the request of the perpetrator’. Dr Kath Murray, from policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie which obtained the data, said: ‘At the risk of stating the obvious, it is hard to understand what possible operational value there is in knowing that a registered sex offender or a person convicted of terrorism may think of themselves as neutrois, pangender, or other such obscure terms more commonly found on Reddit discussion boards or Tumblr.’ A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The ViSOR system was developed 25 years ago... Many aspects of the system are now outdated, and the Home Office is currently developing a brand new system.’ THIS week’s Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman is the perfect opportunity to stop and take stock of the mad culture war that has been raging around this issue for the past decade or so. In the battle of Trans v Terfs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), it would appear for now, at least that the Terfs have scored a definitive victory. The judges have ruled that when the term ‘woman’ is used in the context of the 2010 Equality Act, it means a biological woman, and that ‘sex’ denotes biological sex. This means that biological males – including physically intact ones – who ‘identify’ as female can no longer claim automatic entry to women-only spaces such as changing rooms, toilets and prisons. It also means that they cannot now participate in women’s sports, something that many (including myself) have long argued gives them an unfair physical advantage. Needless to say, this has prompted outrage, especially on social media, from LGBTQ-etc campaigners, who see it as a blow to their rights by a reactionary and bigoted judiciary and by a group of hardline Terfs who want to deny them their right to exist. This is not the case. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a trans woman. Or, for that matter a trans man, though this ruling will mainly affect trans women since trans men don’t statistically pose a threat to biological males, whereas the same has not proven true of trans women. Trans people – or those who feel themselves to be a different gender from their biological sex – have a history stretching back centuries and spanning many cultures. They are a small but steadfast minority, often vulnerable to the judgement of the mainstream. The vast majority pose no threat to anyone, and just want to get on with their lives like the rest of us. ONE thinks of the late author and travel writer Jan Morris, the Olympian Caitlyn Jenner – even Armistead Maupin’s wonderful fictional character, Anna Madrigal. All authentic, complex characters whose desire to live as women has no bearing on the dignity, safety and rights of biological females. Trans women like these have always been welcome alongside biological women as far as I’m concerned, provided everyone concerned is comfortable with it. I, certainly, have never felt threatened by any of the trans ladies I occasionally sit next to or share a bathroom with at my hairdresser, which specialises in hair loss (a problem I share with many trans women). But this week’s ruling has not been made necessary by these sorts of trans women. Instead, it is the result of the actions and aggressions of a different type of trans woman: those who claim to live as women but who in reality act like the worst kind of male bully, imposing their bodies and their sex on females. Who merely wear the mask of womanhood, not necessarily because that is who they want to be but because it suits their purpose, which has been shown, on occasion, to be criminal. Some seem to delight in imposing their maleness on women in women-only spaces, others are clearly there for voyeuristic purposes. It is neither the fault of trans women nor biological women that these people exist. But exist they do, and in recent years, as being trans has become a cause celebre, they have been able to take advantage. Biological women – always the first to bear the brunt of society’s ills – have found their hard-won rights being whittled away and handed to a group of people – many of them, as I say, not truly trans women at all – who don’t respect theirs. There are countless examples of this. We simply cannot have a situation where a man accused of multiple rapes (Adam Graham) dons a wig and declares himself a woman (Isla Bryson) while awaiting trial and is indulged by the court, even serving part of his sentence in a women’s prison. Nor is it acceptable to have mediocre male athletes who possess all the inherent physical advantages of an adult male – superior strength and stamina – re-invent themselves as females to win women’s medals. Nor is it OK that women should have their jobs and livelihoods threatened – such as the nurse Sandie Peggie, suspended for refusing to share a room with a trans-identifying male doctor, or the eight Darlington nurses uncomfortable about sharing their changing room with a male-bodied colleague. WOMEN need private safe spaces in a way that men don’t – because, simply, a man is far more likely to physically harm or take advantage of a woman than the other way round. Even if the male-bodied individuals involved have no bad intentions, some women just find that masculine energy oppressive and intimidating. And with good reason. More than nine out of ten female murder victims are killed by men; and a woman is killed every three days by a man in the UK. Everywhere you look in the world, men are harming women. We are not making this up. It’s because of these men that women needed this Supreme Court ruling. Malicious individuals and all those who, for whatever reason – tribal politics, moral weakness, cowardice, laziness, deep-seated misogyny – have put the rights of male-bodied trans women above those of biological women. It’s these rogue elements who have pushed our patience, kindness and tolerance to its limits and left us biological women – as defined by the highest court in the land – with no choice but to defend ourselves. True trans women understand this, or at least they ought to. For what else is a trans woman but a male who has rejected masculinity and embraced her feminine side? Like biological women, trans women often face daily prejudice, and are frequent victims of male violence – including or even especially sexual violence. And yet somehow the one-dimensional dogma of trans ideology – trans women ARE women, and anyone who questions that is evil – has pitted them against their sisters – when in fact all women, trans and biological, should be united against the same adversary. Put bluntly, you can’t identify as a woman and be on the side of opportunistic male abusers. And yet that’s all too often the case. Trans women will defend all biological males seeking to enter women’s spaces – even when it’s patently obvious that they’re fakes. And it’s in part this stubborn intransigence that has led us to this point – and now they stand to lose out. Many trans celebrities – such as Married at First Sight star Ella Morgan, Ant Lexa from Sex Education and Bel Priestley, who has 1.4million followers on social media – have spoken out furiously against this ruling. Their anger is perfectly understandable. If I were in their position, I too would be upset. But they’re directing their rage at the wrong people. It’s not the judges, JK Rowling or the campaigners from For Women Scotland (who took their case to the Supreme Court) who are the real enemy here. IT’S the zealots on their own side and the lazy, opportunistic politicians, institutions and commentators who allowed this to happen, who overstepped all reasonable and safe boundaries in a pathetic and cowardly attempt to paint themselves as ‘progressive’. Instead of pushing back when they should have done, and advocating for a more flexible, common-sense approach, these guilty parties doubled down on the side of the hardliners. In Scotland particularly, where the now-discredited Nicola Sturgeon was in thrall to this toxic ideology, women were left with very little choice but to fight back. If not for themselves, then for their daughters. With this ruling, these knee-benders find themselves in a right old pickle. Labour’s whole stance on women’s rights seems to have descended into farce, with ministers seemingly unable to compute the result. Health minister Karin Smyth struggled to clarify which changing room trans women should now use, saying only that it ‘was important that a trans man or a trans woman also has dignity in their use of public spaces’. Chancellor Rachel Reeves avoided giving a straightforward answer to the question of whether the Prime Minister should apologise to MP Rosie Duffield, who was hounded out of the party for her gender-critical views. Meanwhile Steve North, president of the Unison union (which bankrolled Labour to the tune of more than £4million last year) said: ‘I want to restate my solidarity with our trans members. This judgment does not change Unison policy in support of trans rights.’ So: denial, then, and plenty of it. In the same way that Labour refuses to instigate a national inquiry into the paedophile Pakistani rape gangs who destroyed the lives of thousands of young girls and their families in Labourrun councils, now they refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling that will ensure the safety of similarly vulnerable women against similarly opportunistic and predatory men. That is Labour for you. That is the woke Left, which cares only about people-pleasing, and not about what’s right or wrong. DAVID Lammy saying that ‘a man can grow a cervix’ and our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, saying that some women have penises: they are as much a part of the problem as biological males who cheat female athletes out of their achievements, or insert themselves into women’s spaces for all the wrong reasons. The sheer mendacity of Labour in the wake of this ruling is breathtaking. Rather than accept they made mistakes, they are trying to gaslight us all – when what they should really do is apologise, not just to women but to all those who have, like Duffield, been defenestrated for daring to speak out. Women like Maggie Oliver – the whistleblowing former detective with Greater Manchester Police now leading the charge for a rapegang inquiry – together with Trina Budge, Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland, are cut from the same cloth. They are not afraid to make the difficult, unfashionable argument, they will not make excuses for bad people just because they happen to be minorities. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, too, belongs in that category. She has advocated for protecting women’s spaces long before it became semi-acceptable to do so. But it doesn’t end here. There is one final frontier in the fightback against this dogma, and it affects both sexes. That is the scandal of children and young people being coerced into permanently altering their bodies via drugs or surgery by zealots posing as medical professionals. Gender ideology is rife in schools. Kids are not being made aware – nor equipped to understand – the long-term repercussions of the choices they are being guided towards making. They don’t understand that transitioning is a serious, life-long commitment that requires permanent medication and may well lead to serious complications, from permanent infertility to weakened bones and cancer. They find themselves unhappy or confused about life, and instead of being encouraged to explore their emotions, they are being told that the problem lies in the very essence of who they are. The Cass review into gender services for children and young people in Britain has already led to an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescription in the UK – but even the most cursory glance at social media will reveal how far the rot has already spread. And this time it’s not just about protecting women, it’s about protecting the next generation. That, sadly, is a battle that has yet to be won. Article Name:The 51 gender identities criminals allowed to use Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent SARAH VINE Start Page:4 End Page:4
THIS week’s Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman is the perfect opportunity to stop and take stock of the mad culture war that has been raging around this issue for the past decade or so. In the battle of Trans v Terfs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), it would appear for now, at least that the Terfs have scored a definitive victory. The judges have ruled that when the term ‘woman’ is used in the context of the 2010 Equality Act, it means a biological woman, and that ‘sex’ denotes biological sex. This means that biological males – including physically intact ones – who ‘identify’ as female can no longer claim automatic entry to women-only spaces such as changing rooms, toilets and prisons. It also means that they cannot now participate in women’s sports, something that many (including myself) have long argued gives them an unfair physical advantage. Needless to say, this has prompted outrage, especially on social media, from LGBTQ-etc campaigners, who see it as a blow to their rights by a reactionary and bigoted judiciary and by a group of hardline Terfs who want to deny them their right to exist. This is not the case. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a trans woman. Or, for that matter a trans man, though this ruling will mainly affect trans women since trans men don’t statistically pose a threat to biological males, whereas the same has not proven true of trans women. Trans people – or those who feel themselves to be a different gender from their biological sex – have a history stretching back centuries and spanning many cultures. They are a small but steadfast minority, often vulnerable to the judgement of the mainstream. The vast majority pose no threat to anyone, and just want to get on with their lives like the rest of us. ONE thinks of the late author and travel writer Jan Morris, the Olympian Caitlyn Jenner – even Armistead Maupin’s wonderful fictional character, Anna Madrigal. All authentic, complex characters whose desire to live as women has no bearing on the dignity, safety and rights of biological females. Trans women like these have always been welcome alongside biological women as far as I’m concerned, provided everyone concerned is comfortable with it. I, certainly, have never felt threatened by any of the trans ladies I occasionally sit next to or share a bathroom with at my hairdresser, which specialises in hair loss (a problem I share with many trans women). But this week’s ruling has not been made necessary by these sorts of trans women. Instead, it is the result of the actions and aggressions of a different type of trans woman: those who claim to live as women but who in reality act like the worst kind of male bully, imposing their bodies and their sex on females. Who merely wear the mask of womanhood, not necessarily because that is who they want to be but because it suits their purpose, which has been shown, on occasion, to be criminal. Some seem to delight in imposing their maleness on women in women-only spaces, others are clearly there for voyeuristic purposes. It is neither the fault of trans women nor biological women that these people exist. But exist they do, and in recent years, as being trans has become a cause celebre, they have been able to take advantage. Biological women – always the first to bear the brunt of society’s ills – have found their hard-won rights being whittled away and handed to a group of people – many of them, as I say, not truly trans women at all – who don’t respect theirs. There are countless examples of this. We simply cannot have a situation where a man accused of multiple rapes (Adam Graham) dons a wig and declares himself a woman (Isla Bryson) while awaiting trial and is indulged by the court, even serving part of his sentence in a women’s prison. Nor is it acceptable to have mediocre male athletes who possess all the inherent physical advantages of an adult male – superior strength and stamina – re-invent themselves as females to win women’s medals. Nor is it OK that women should have their jobs and livelihoods threatened – such as the nurse Sandie Peggie, suspended for refusing to share a room with a trans-identifying male doctor, or the eight Darlington nurses uncomfortable about sharing their changing room with a male-bodied colleague. WOMEN need private safe spaces in a way that men don’t – because, simply, a man is far more likely to physically harm or take advantage of a woman than the other way round. Even if the male-bodied individuals involved have no bad intentions, some women just find that masculine energy oppressive and intimidating. And with good reason. More than nine out of ten female murder victims are killed by men; and a woman is killed every three days by a man in the UK. Everywhere you look in the world, men are harming women. We are not making this up. It’s because of these men that women needed this Supreme Court ruling. Malicious individuals and all those who, for whatever reason – tribal politics, moral weakness, cowardice, laziness, deep-seated misogyny – have put the rights of male-bodied trans women above those of biological women. It’s these rogue elements who have pushed our patience, kindness and tolerance to its limits and left us biological women – as defined by the highest court in the land – with no choice but to defend ourselves. True trans women understand this, or at least they ought to. For what else is a trans woman but a male who has rejected masculinity and embraced her feminine side? Like biological women, trans women often face daily prejudice, and are frequent victims of male violence – including or even especially sexual violence. And yet somehow the one-dimensional dogma of trans ideology – trans women ARE women, and anyone who questions that is evil – has pitted them against their sisters – when in fact all women, trans and biological, should be united against the same adversary. Put bluntly, you can’t identify as a woman and be on the side of opportunistic male abusers. And yet that’s all too often the case. Trans women will defend all biological males seeking to enter women’s spaces – even when it’s patently obvious that they’re fakes. And it’s in part this stubborn intransigence that has led us to this point – and now they stand to lose out. Many trans celebrities – such as Married at First Sight star Ella Morgan, Ant Lexa from Sex Education and Bel Priestley, who has 1.4million followers on social media – have spoken out furiously against this ruling. Their anger is perfectly understandable. If I were in their position, I too would be upset. But they’re directing their rage at the wrong people. It’s not the judges, JK Rowling or the campaigners from For Women Scotland (who took their case to the Supreme Court) who are the real enemy here. IT’S the zealots on their own side and the lazy, opportunistic politicians, institutions and commentators who allowed this to happen, who overstepped all reasonable and safe boundaries in a pathetic and cowardly attempt to paint themselves as ‘progressive’. Instead of pushing back when they should have done, and advocating for a more flexible, common-sense approach, these guilty parties doubled down on the side of the hardliners. In Scotland particularly, where the now-discredited Nicola Sturgeon was in thrall to this toxic ideology, women were left with very little choice but to fight back. If not for themselves, then for their daughters. With this ruling, these knee-benders find themselves in a right old pickle. Labour’s whole stance on women’s rights seems to have descended into farce, with ministers seemingly unable to compute the result. Health minister Karin Smyth struggled to clarify which changing room trans women should now use, saying only that it ‘was important that a trans man or a trans woman also has dignity in their use of public spaces’. Chancellor Rachel Reeves avoided giving a straightforward answer to the question of whether the Prime Minister should apologise to MP Rosie Duffield, who was hounded out of the party for her gender-critical views. Meanwhile Steve North, president of the Unison union (which bankrolled Labour to the tune of more than £4million last year) said: ‘I want to restate my solidarity with our trans members. This judgment does not change Unison policy in support of trans rights.’ So: denial, then, and plenty of it. In the same way that Labour refuses to instigate a national inquiry into the paedophile Pakistani rape gangs who destroyed the lives of thousands of young girls and their families in Labourrun councils, now they refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling that will ensure the safety of similarly vulnerable women against similarly opportunistic and predatory men. That is Labour for you. That is the woke Left, which cares only about people-pleasing, and not about what’s right or wrong. DAVID Lammy saying that ‘a man can grow a cervix’ and our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, saying that some women have penises: they are as much a part of the problem as biological males who cheat female athletes out of their achievements, or insert themselves into women’s spaces for all the wrong reasons. The sheer mendacity of Labour in the wake of this ruling is breathtaking. Rather than accept they made mistakes, they are trying to gaslight us all – when what they should really do is apologise, not just to women but to all those who have, like Duffield, been defenestrated for daring to speak out. Women like Maggie Oliver – the whistleblowing former detective with Greater Manchester Police now leading the charge for a rapegang inquiry – together with Trina Budge, Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland, are cut from the same cloth. They are not afraid to make the difficult, unfashionable argument, they will not make excuses for bad people just because they happen to be minorities. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, too, belongs in that category. She has advocated for protecting women’s spaces long before it became semi-acceptable to do so. But it doesn’t end here. There is one final frontier in the fightback against this dogma, and it affects both sexes. That is the scandal of children and young people being coerced into permanently altering their bodies via drugs or surgery by zealots posing as medical professionals. Gender ideology is rife in schools. Kids are not being made aware – nor equipped to understand – the long-term repercussions of the choices they are being guided towards making. They don’t understand that transitioning is a serious, life-long commitment that requires permanent medication and may well lead to serious complications, from permanent infertility to weakened bones and cancer. They find themselves unhappy or confused about life, and instead of being encouraged to explore their emotions, they are being told that the problem lies in the very essence of who they are. The Cass review into gender services for children and young people in Britain has already led to an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescription in the UK – but even the most cursory glance at social media will reveal how far the rot has already spread. And this time it’s not just about protecting women, it’s about protecting the next generation. That, sadly, is a battle that has yet to be won. Article Name:The 51 gender identities criminals allowed to use Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent SARAH VINE Start Page:16 End Page:16
Telegraph [4]
Rapists no longer able to identify as female Police forces expected to record sexual offenders by their sex and not preferred gender after court ruling The Daily Telegraph - Saturday19 Apr 2025By Martin Evans CRIME EDITOR Rapists will no longer be able to identify as women following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. Forces are now expected to begin recording criminals’ birth sex rather than preferred gender in official statistics following the ruling, which stated trans women are not the same as biological women. It will end a situation where some police forces record rapists as being women, even though the legal definition of the crime requires a penis. RAPISTS will no longer be able to identify as women following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. Forces are now expected to begin recording criminals’ birth sex rather than preferred gender in official crime statistics following the ruling, which stated trans women are not the same as biological women under equality laws. It will end a situation where some police forces record rapists as being women, even though the legal definition of the crime requires a penis. Campaigners, including gender critical police officers, have hailed the move as a victory for common sense and have said it will help restore public confidence in policing. Current guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) recommends forces ask suspects if they are “male”, “female” or “intersex”. But it goes on to state that: “Using the term ‘gender’ as a substitute for the term ‘sex’ is not appropriate as gender is not a protected characteristic. “Gender is a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity.” However, not all forces follow the guidance and a recent report into the way public bodies collect data on sex and gender revealed that at least 12 police forces allowed rape suspects and other sexual offenders to self-declare their preferred gender identity. This means men arrested on suspicion of violent sexual attacks can self-identify as a woman and be recorded as such on official statistics. The records form part of the annual data requirement (ADR), submitted by every police force in England and Wales to the Home Office. Last year, in a change of policy, Police Scotland announced that rape suspects would no longer be able to self identify as female. It followed controversy over the case of Adam Graham who began identifying as a woman named Isla Bryson while awaiting trial accused of two rapes. After being convicted and jailed for eight years, Bryson was initially sent to a women’s prison, but he was subsequently moved following a public outcry. Following the scandal, the NPCC announced a review into the issue in England and Wales, but it has yet to report. Police sources who have examined the Supreme Court ruling in detail believe it will sweep away the current confusion around transgender sex offenders. David Spencer, head of crime and justice at the Policy Exchange, said it was time for policing to adopt a common sense approach. He said: “This week’s judgment by the UK Supreme Court shines a light on policies across the public sector. “An independent review this year found police forces do not consistently record the natal sex of alleged sex offenders – meaning suspected rapists may not be accurately recorded in police records. “This could have grave consequences for whether the police are able to effectively investigate sexual offences. “This is the sort of nonsense which leads to the public losing confidence in the police. “As Policy Exchange has repeatedly made clear – it is long past time for police chiefs to adopt a common-sense approach to their work.” A spokesman for the group SEEN UK, a network of serving officers who hold gender-critical beliefs, also welcomed the ruling and urged all forces to ensure full compliance with the Equality Act 2010, as clarified by the court. He said: “The police service is bound by a duty to uphold the law impartially and without fear or favour. That duty must not be compromised by political or ideological pressures. “The rights of women and girls, especially those enshrined in sex-based protections, are a matter of law, not preference. “The Supreme Court has now spoken with clarity. The responsibility to act in accordance with that ruling rests squarely with those entrusted to enforce the law.” Chief Constable Rachel Swann, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s diversity, equality and inclusion committee, said: “I welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and we will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome. “We will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.” ‘It is long past time for police chiefs to adopt a common-sense approach to their work’ Article Name:Rapists no longer able to identify as female Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Author:By Martin Evans CRIME EDITOR Start Page:1 End Page:1
Telegraph front page
Gender rules mean passports ‘unreliable’ The Daily Telegraph - Saturday19 Apr 2025By Amy Gibbons ALLOWING transgender people to change their gender on official documents has made passports unreliable, a Tory peer has said. Lord Arbuthnot, a former Conservative MP, warned there was no way to prove someone’s biological sex from their documents, creating a “real problem” for women’s safety. Trans people are able to change their gender on official documents by providing proof of their transition, such as a gender recognition certificate or letter from their doctor. On passports, this will override the marker for sex at birth with the person’s preferred gender. Lord Arbuthnot, who has previously warned about the risks of relying on self-identification, said the rules had made it impossible to ascertain someone’s biological sex from their government documents. It follows the Supreme Court’s ruling that only biological women are women, ending years of confusion over trans people’s access to single-sex spaces. The ruling is expected to lead to a series of changes, including who can use single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches, and who can join female teams in elite sport. Ministers have so far sidestepped questions on what the ruling will mean in practice. Lord Arbuthnot told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme on Thursday: “The problem is that no government-issued document at the moment is reliable in terms of the sex at birth of a person whose document it is. “The passport is often treated as being the gold standard for whether you are male or female, but it’s not the case. The same is true of the driver’s licence.” He said there were around 100,000 people who had different sexes recorded on different documents. “There is a real problem if, say, a person who identifies as female but was male at birth is sent to give intimate care to a woman in a nursing home who has asked for only women to look after her.” Article Name:Gender rules mean passports ‘unreliable’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Author:By Amy Gibbons Start Page:11 End Page:11

Sunday Total: 14

The Observer [3]
United, undeterred and unafraid, trans people rally over court ruling Thousands gather in London’s Parliament Square to protest at judges’ decision The Observer20 Apr 2025James Tapper Stephen Chung/ LNP LEFT Crowds gather outside Parliament in a huge show of unity and solidarity. After last week’s supreme court decision, activists had been worried trans people might become fearful of going out in public in case they were abused. They weren’t afraid in London yesterday. Thousands of trans and nonbinary people thronged Parliament Square, alongside families and supporters waving baby blue, white and pink flags to demonstrate their anger at the judges’ ruling. The numbers seemed to take the organisers and police by surprise. Protesters from a hastily assembled coalition of 24 groups gathered in a ring against the barriers surrounding the grass and began speeches. But after the roads became clogged with people, a woman wearing a “Nobody knows I’m a lesbian” top ran across with her dog and soon the square was full. “It’s one hell of a turnout and there is a really strong sense of unity and solidarity,” said Jamie Strudwick, one of the organisers. “I think it’s impossible to compare it – it’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before.” Last Wednesday, the supreme court ruled that when the Equality Act 2010 referred to women, it referred only to biological sex and did not include transgender women who hold a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The judgment was celebrated by groups including For Women Scotland, a gender-critical campaign group backed by JK Rowling, which says that women’s safety is threatened by allowing transgender women into single-sex spaces. In his judgment, Lord Hodge said that trans people were still protected from discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act. But some trans people say they have felt confusion, fear and anger, with many believing they will find it harder to challenge unfair treatment and receive support from authorities that should be helping them. After the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission chair, Kishwer Falkner, said that it would create a new statutory code of practice by the summer, giving guidance to public bodies on how they should change their treatment of women and trans people. She said the NHS would need to change its rules on single-sex wards and her organisation would pursue the matter if it did not. Other organisations have already acted. British Transport Police said same-sex searches in custody would be conducted “in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee”. “In the last week, I’ve had to ‘It’s like we’re going back in time. It feels like we’re not protected by the law any more’ A trans woman protester respond to four suicide attempts or threats from young people,” said Oscar Hoyle, who founded the Blossom LGBT community interest group in 2018. “The most significant one, I was on the phone for three hours to a transgender girl, 18 years old. It took three hours for police to come.” Blossom works with about 400 16 to 30-year-olds from across the LGBTQ community to support them into adulthood, and about twothirds identify as trans or non-binary. “Regardless of where you sit , nobody should be in a position where they feel like life isn’t worth living just because they fall within a marginalised group,” Hoyle said. Among the crowds outside parliament were Awsten Atkinson, a 23-year-old trans man and their partner, Daisy Watt, a 19-year-old trans woman. “My first reaction to the ruling was absolute horror,” Watt said. “I remember looking at the news and thinking, how on earth have we fallen this far? Not even 10 years ago we were making incredible progress but we just seemed to backslide so severely.” Atkinson was “in disbelief”: “Why do people care so much about what we do with our lives when it doesn’t actually affect them? This is being framed as a feminist movement but the criteria they’re using to decide who is a woman brings the focus back to women as objects, as the sum of their body parts.” Watt was “reassured that we have a community around us that is willing to stand up and speak truth to power”. Atkinson added: “As we were coming along, I started smiling and I said to them [Watt and her friends] ‘wow look at everybody’. What you can count on in this community is that people will rally round.” Near Mahatma Gandhi’s statue, two trans women in their 20s said they were worried that the UK was becoming more like the US. “When they instituted the bathroom bans there, you saw that it wasn’t just trans people, it was also cis people getting accused and being forced out,” one said. The other said: “What I see is trans misogyny that women legally can’t be women, whereas men will always be men. I find it very scary. “In public spaces I have a different vibe. It’s like we’re going back in time. It feels like we’re not protected by the law any more.” Ann-Marie Still was there with her sister and niece. When she heard the news she was disappointed. “I immediately reached out to trans friends, family, with a simple message: ‘you are loved, you are valid’.” “Most people disregard the young,” said Dani, who was there representing her trans sister. “Parents, children, elderly people – they can’t live their lives as they actually want to.” Police later launched an investigation after seven statues were daubed with graffiti, among them that of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett. Scotland Yard said its officers were in Parliament Square at the time, but did not witness the “criminal damage” take place. No arrests had been made, but officers were investigating, said Ch Supt Stuart Bell, leading the protest policing operation. Article Name:United, undeterred and unafraid, trans people rally over court ruling Publication:The Observer Author:James Tapper Start Page:15 End Page:15
The supreme court carefully ringfenced protections for women. That’s all we wanted Last week’s ruling clarified the legal safeguards of the Equality Act. However, it was a travesty that the battle needed to be fought at all The Observer20 Apr 2025Sonia Sodha Andy Rain/EPA Susan Smith and Marion Calder of For Women Scotland after the supreme court ruling. Middle-aged women are expected to fade into the background, to be apologetic for their existence, to quietly accept their lot. They’re not supposed to stick up for themselves, to enforce their boundaries, to say no. As a woman, these societal expectations have been drummed into me from day one. But still. The swell of anger and disgust that rose in response to the supreme court judgment last week that made clear women’s rights are not for dismantling – rights already won, that were supposed to be ours all along – has taken my breath away. I was in court last Wednesday to hear Lord Hodge confirm that the Equality Act’s legal protections that were always intended for women are, indeed, reserved for women. He reiterated that trans people continue to have the same robust legal protections against discrimination and harassment as any other protected group, something I’ve always emphasised in my own writing. But men who identify as female – whether or not they have a legal certificate – are not to be treated as though female for the purposes of equalities law. This is a hugely consequential clarification because for the past 10 years lobby groups such as Stonewall have misrepresented the law, telling public sector organisations, charities and companies that they must treat trans women as women. Now the supreme court has made it clear: female-only services, spaces and sports cannot admit males, however they identify. Workplaces and schools must offer singlesex facilities; service providers do not always have to, though it may be unlawful sex discrimination for them not to do so. This means it is never lawful to expect a female nurse to share changing facilities with a male colleague. It’s not lawful to tell a distressed female patient that the obviously male patient next to her in the female-only ward is, in fact, a woman and she is transphobic to question it. It’s not lawful to expect a female rape victim to take or leave a female-only support group that includes men. It’s not lawful to tell a woman required to undergo a strip-search that the male police officer doing it is actually female. It’s not lawful to expect teenage girls to play women’s football on a team with male players, or female boxers to box against men. Lesbians can have their own groups and associations without being bullied into admitting straight male members who – in an act of gross homophobia – self-identify as “lesbian”. Why does this matter? Because this unlawful activity has all been happening in recent years, to the detriment not just of women’s safety, but our privacy and dignity. The judgment could not be clearer on the above, though that has not stopped a former supreme court justice, Jonathan Sumption, and a former cabinet minister, Harriet Harman, from taking to the airwaves to interpret the law incorrectly. In his remarks, Hodge cautioned against reading the judgment as a triumph of one group over another. That is entirely correct: the Equality Act balances conflicting rights, and the supreme court has simply restored the balance to where the law said it was supposed to be. Trans people have their protections, but now women’s protections, too, have been clearly ringfenced on the same basis – all that leftwing feminists ever asked for. But many pundits have misinterpreted this as meaning women should not celebrate a landmark legal victory in a case it was a travesty they ever had to fight. It’s a product of the rank misogyny embedded everywhere, from right to left. Can you imagine angry leftwing men railing against any other group that’s managed to secure their rights? Chastising them for not being gracious enough in victory? Me neither. The reaction to the judgment serves as an important reminder that, while the law is the law, our culture remains dead-set against women who say no to men. It’s how women’s and lesbians’ rights were so rapidly eroded by Stonewall and its allies in the first place, and why women have been bullied, hounded and sacked simply for trying to assert their legal protections. The same people are ignoring the supreme court’s emphasis that none of this takes away from trans people’s existing rights, and are scaremongering and infantilising trans people as victims. Lloyds Bank wrote to all its employees to say it “stood by” and “cherished” all its trans employees. Several unions have organised an emergency demo in support of trans rights, giving the impression they are being rolled back. It’s easy to forget that all that has happened is that the supreme court has been clear that a male desire for validation does not trump women’s rights to single-sex spaces and services. That if you are a male police officer or nurse demanding to strip-search or carry out a smear test on a woman, the answer is no. Part of being a grownup is understanding that the world cannot always be structured around your own wants and needs. It’s not kind, compassionate or healthy to indulge a failure to accept that. The judgment means trans rights activists are at a crossroads. Do they double down and try to argue that MPs must respond by dismantling women’s legal protections? Or do they put a stop to an ideological crusade that’s harmed not just women and lesbians, but the many trans people who aren’t dogmatic about gender ideology, and instead advocate for gender-neutral third spaces, open and female categories in sports, and specialist services for trans people, and against discrimination based on gender non-conformity? If they pick the latter path, they’ll find willing allies in women like me. And finally, to the countless women who lost so much in fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be ours all along, there could be no happier way for me to round off my last regular column for the Observer than by saying: you are heroes. Pop those champagne corks. Celebrate as hard as you like. You deserve it. Article Name:The supreme court carefully ringfenced protections for women. That’s all we wanted Publication:The Observer Author:Sonia Sodha Start Page:41 End Page:41
Not a rollback: the dignified compromise that respects everyone’s rights The Observer20 Apr 2025 The meaning of “woman” and “female” in the Equality Act has become one of the most contested questions of recent years. Last week the supreme court settled it, in a landmark legal judgment that affirms the rights of women to the same level of legal protection afforded to other groups. The Equality Act protects people against discrimination on the basis of nine protected characteristics, including their sex, race, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The question at stake was whether “sex” means someone’s biological sex, or their “certificated sex”; in other words, should those who are male but who have a gender recognition certificate (GRC) be treated as a woman under equalities law? The answer that the supreme court produced is no: because to do so would be to drive a coach and horses through Equality Act provisions aimed at protecting women, lesbians and gay men. The law is now clear: it is not lawful to allow anyone male, including trans women, to take part in femaleonly sports affected by average differences in strength and stamina between the sexes. It is unlawful to operate singlesex services, hospital wards, changing rooms and toilets that are open to trans members of the opposite sex. Workplaces and schools must always provide single-sex facilities; other service providers can choose whether to, but not doing so might be sex discrimination. A hospital or care provider cannot honour a woman’s request to have intimate care provided by a female with a male professional who identifies as female. Lesbians and gay men can now run membership associations without being obliged to admit heterosexual members of the opposite sex who have a GRC. And trans men remain entitled to the same protections against pregnancy and maternity discrimination as other members of their sex, regardless of whether or not they have a GRC. The judgment is also clear that trans people have exactly the same level of protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation as other groups, which is exactly as it should be. It cannot therefore be represented as the rollback of rights that some have sought to do. Instead, the supreme court has emphasised the balancing nature of the Equality Act, which adjudicates between the rights of different groups. The reason this was needed is because in practice the balance of rights had been pushed off kilter by campaigners insisting that trans women must be treated as though they are female under equalities law. Right across society, from the NHS, to the police, to prisons, to workplaces: the law has in effect been rewritten by leaders and HR managers in response to activist demands, and in a way that unlawfully discriminates against women. Politicians from all parties have refused to grapple with this conundrum. This could not contrast more sharply with the bravery and resilience of the three grassroots feminists who set up For Women Scotland and forced this issue in front of the highest court in the land. Their fortitude has paved the way for judges to provide this important reset that reminds organisations that their legal obligations are not just to one group, and they must take their legal duties to women as seriously as they do their duties to trans people. It was never for the supreme court to set out the policy solutions that accommodate everyone’s rights, but it is fairly evident what they should be. Service providers should provide gender-neutral changing rooms and toilets alongside single sex and accessible facilities to ensure trans people have spaces they can feel comfortable using. Sporting bodies should adopt a fully-inclusive open category, which anyone can enter, alongside the female-only category necessary to protect fairness and safety in women’s sports. This is the dignified compromise that respects the rights of everyone. Article Name:Not a rollback: the dignified compromise that respects everyone’s rights Publication:The Observer Start Page:42 End Page:42
The Sunday Times [0]
Supreme Court victors tell of hate mail — as Mumsnet boss says site was ‘blacklisted’ from having government ads Hadley Freeman, Rosamund Urwin, Harry Yorke, William Turvill and Dominic Hauschild Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder are two of the founders of For Women Scotland, which brought last week’s Supreme Court challenge on the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act Next image › The campaigners who won the Supreme Court battle over the legal definition of a woman have been inundated with death threats and misogynistic abuse since the landmark judgment. On Wednesday five judges sided with For Women Scotland (FWS), which argued that single-sex spaces and protections should apply only to people born female. It marked the end of a long-running legal battle and is expected to have big implications for how transgender issues and sex-based rights are applied across Britain. The public response has been highly polarised. The three women behind FWS’s campaign revealed they have since been subjected to an outpouring of hatred online. They also talked about how their opinions damaged their employment and business interests. Messages sent to the organisation’s email address included one received hours after the ruling that said: “You’re a group of disgusting murderers and deserve death. God will rip you from your family one day and nobody will mourn you.” Another read: “Your inhumanity makes me vomit. You stupid women should feel deeply ashamed for being so stupid.” Susan Smith, one of the FWS campaigners, said: “It would never occur to us to send messages like this or to call our opponents ugly. But we get this every day.” Another, Marion Calder, added: “Sadly, it is almost inevitable that women who speak up for our rights will be threatened by angry men. It’s a tale as old as the hills. “Ironically, this lot think they are on the side of ‘progress’, ‘kindness’ and ‘human rights’, but they have no issue using the most dehumanising, sexist abuse or threatening the most extreme violence. “Thankfully, the nastiness is dwarfed by messages of love and support, many of which have brought us to tears.” The women have not reported the threats to Police Scotland, who would need this to investigate. On Saturday several thousand protesters gathered in central London to demonstrate against the ruling. In Parliament Square, close to the Supreme Court building, many waved the trans Pride flag and held placards that criticised the government, particularly the health secretary, Wes Streeting. Statues including that of Winston Churchill had Pride flags taped to their hands, and one of the suffragist Millicent Fawcett was defaced with a slogan. The Metropolitan Police said they were investigating acts of vandalism. At mid-afternoon the crowd began an impromptu march, seemingly unhindered by the police and bringing traffic to a standstill. Demonstrators chanted slogans including “Wes Streeting, blood on your hands” and “F*** the judges, burn the courts”. Others chanted: “Trans liberation, no assimilation.” The founder of Mumsnet claimed the site had previously been “blacklisted” from hosting government advertising because of its stance on transgender issues. Justine Roberts said the company discovered in early 2022 that the media agency that buys adverts for the government was no longer placing them on the site. Roberts, who believes the decision was overturned by officials working for Boris Johnson, the prime minister at the time, said: “We’re not antitrans. But we believe women have a right to raise concerns about their sex-based rights.” Last year Mumsnet called for reform of the Equality Act to ensure biological women have access to single-sex spaces. Roberts said last week she feared for the company’s survival after it was branded “bigoted” and blacklisted by advertisers including Barclays and Ocado over allowing debate on trans issues on the site. She said yesterday she believed its problems extended to the government. “We were on a blacklist with Omnigov, the media buying agency that does all the government’s advertising,” Roberts said. “I spoke to [Johnson’s] team about this in May 2022 when I interviewed him for Mumsnet and they were really shocked and seemed to unlock the situation, as government spending with us started up again.” Omnigov, a division of the advertising giant MG OMD, buys advertising space for the government, although strategic decisions are taken by the Cabinet Office. A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “We have never blacklisted any outlet for gender-critical views. Mumsnet has continued to be used for advertising and partnerships, including in 2022. We follow transparent criteria for where we place advertising in our ‘Safe’ framework [for ethical decision-making] published online.” A senior civil servant who was familiar with the discussions at the time said: “[The government] got very wokey. The ‘woke mind virus’ did infect government advertising after 2022.” Trans activists targeted brands on social media, telling them not to advertise with Mumsnet, and tried to press the platform to “shut down” conversations about issues such as safeguarding of single-sex spaces. “Things got particularly tough during Covid. We had to make some difficult decisions, including redundancies,” Roberts said. “We’d gone almost overnight from a world where saying there are two sexes was a commonplace view to one where stating that belief could be labelled as hateful. That kind of climate understandably made risk-averse companies jumpy ... These days, advertisers rarely raise it.” Roberts believes attitudes in businesses have since shifted dramatically. “The lazy and ... misogynistic narrative that this was simply ‘mums in a moral panic’ has been challenged,” she said. “I think some organisations rushed to adopt guidance from groups like Stonewall without fully interrogating how extreme some of those positions had become.” Ocado, which last year pulled out of a partnership with Mumsnet, citing its “hateful political views”, apologised “unreservedly” on Friday. Roberts said Mumsnet was open to working with the grocery delivery service again. Although sex and gender topics account for only about 5 per cent of conversations on the forum, Roberts said they required a disproportionate amount of moderation, “often due to attempts to inflame or derail discussion”. Government departments are hurrying to work out what the Supreme Court ruling, which centred on whether trans women could take seats on boards reserved for women, means for policy. Employers are being advised to review all policies on dress codes, single-sex spaces and parental leave in a scramble to avoid legal problems. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has issued guidance to its 160,000 members, representing small and large businesses across the UK, advising them to “audit” internal guidelines to ensure “language reflects the legal definition of sex”. Corporate leaders are preparing to formulate new workplace rules to avoid legal problems. Alex Mahon, Channel 4’s chief executive, said: “The impact is pretty unclear at this time for companies. We will all need to take legal advice and that will take time.”
‘Bloody-minded and stubborn’ Abuse, threats and six years without a holiday? The Mumsnet friends who won a court victory on biological sex say it was all worth it — and tell how it began over a plate of sausage rolls HADLEY FREEMAN HADLEY FREEMAN Next image › It started with sausage rolls. In the lobby of a Premier Inn in Westminster, two women from Scotland — with no political or legal background — are explaining how they took their own government to the Supreme Court last week and won. “We knew that MSPs were never going to invite us to the table. But we figured out that if we offered food, they’d come and listen to us,” says Marion Calder, 55, an NHS worker and single mother from Edinburgh. “It wasn’t easy because we had absolutely no money,” adds Susan Smith, 53, a former financial adviser and a mother of three. “But MSPs love a freebie. So we bought some sausage rolls, some shortbread, teas and coffees, and far more politicians than we expected came to our first open session in January 2019. So that was the beginning.” From sausage rolls to the Supreme Court. Calder, Smith and Trina Budge, 54, a Highland farmer, met on Mumsnet in 2018, connecting over their shared concern about the rise of gender ideology, which was sold by activists as a continuation of the gay rights movement. But to the three women it looked more like a men’s rights movement, one which insists male feelings are more important than female rights and safety. So Calder, Smith and Budge established the grassroots feminist group For Women Scotland (FWS) and last Wednesday, FWS achieved an era-defining victory when the Supreme Court found unanimously in their favour. It ruled that, while the Gender Recognition Act 2004 protects trans people from discrimination, the Equality Act 2010 defines a woman as an adult female, not a man who wishes to identify as a woman, as the Scottish government repeatedly insisted. The past decade of misogynistic magical thinking — when women, including Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock, were driven from their jobs for refusing to believe that womanhood is a feeling rather than a biological fact — is now over, and it is thanks to these three utterly normal, extremely brave women. What Alan Bates did for employees of the Post Office, Calder, Smith and Budge have now done for British women. I call Budge, who is back in Caithness, and she puts FWS’s victory down to one simple factor: “It just boiled down to bloodyminded stubbornness.” The window of the Premier Inn lobby where I meet Calder and Smith looks out directly onto parliament. They should give some of its politicians lessons in courage. MPs of all stripes have parroted the mantras from gender activist organisations, insisting a man can have a cervix (Sir Keir Starmer) and that a man can become a woman without medical intervention (Theresa May). In the wake of the court’s judgment, many will be quietly hoping the public has short memories. FWS is too relieved to gloat. “None of us has had a holiday in six years. But it was worth it,” says Smith. When Calder went on Mumsnet in 2014, it wasn’t because she was worried about gender activism. “I just wanted tips about how to maximise the points on my Boots Advantage card, because Christmas was coming up.” But in between picking up loyalty card shortcuts, she read about “all the bonkers things happening in Canada”, which was starting to pursue a policy of “self-ID”, meaning a man could claim to be a woman, even without having undergone any medical or legal intervention. “And I thought, ‘Well, that can’t be right,’” says Calder who could not have then imagined that her own government would, in 2022, pass a similar bill, championed by Nicola Sturgeon. It was blocked the following year by Rishi Sunak’s government, and the bill sank, along with Sturgeon’s career. Smith started following this issue in 2016: “It was actually your fault, Hadley, because it was something you wrote that made me go, ‘Hang on a second, I need to look into this’.” This was a column I wrote for The Guardian about Caitlyn Jenner, who had undergone a surgical transition the year before and had just been named one of Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year. I wrote that this seemed a bit rum, given that same year Jenner had driven an SUV at what investigators described as an unsafe speed and crashed into two cars, resulting in the death of a 69-year-old woman named Kim Howe. It was a clear example of an attitude that was taking shape, that validating trans women’s feelings matters more than women’s safety. “I only read The Guardian and the BBC in those days, so I had no clue about what was going on, because they barely covered it at all. I was really cross. I’d invested so much of my time and intellectual energy into these so-called bastions of liberalism and free speech, and they let me down,” Smith says. She assumed others in her centre-left milieu would be equally horrified and so she posted her thoughts in a Liberal Democrat Facebook group. “The response I got was like nothing I’d ever seen — all these vicious, angry young men calling me all sorts of abusive names. So that’s when I first logged on to Mumsnet and there were all these smart, funny women who really knew what they were talking about, and I thought, ‘Oh thank God.’” Budge realised how embedded gender ideology was becoming in Scotland when her son started secondary school. “Multiple teachers had told him that children can change sex — and we live in the middle of rural blooming nowhere! Plus these are kids who live on farms. Imagine telling kids who grew up on farmyards biological sex doesn’t exist,” she says. Calder and Budge saw each other’s posts on Mumsnet and messaged each other about starting a feminist group, with Calder’s friend, Magdalen Berns, a computer programmer who made increasingly popular videos on YouTube about the absurdities of gender ideology. “We’re all straight,” says Calder, referring to herself, Budge and Smith. “And Magdalen represented the lesbian contingent.” Budge sent Smith a message in 2017: “I’ve seen your posts on Mumsnet and you seem OK. Can we have a chat?” “Which was so exciting,” says Smith. The women started making plans to launch FWS, but in 2017 Berns was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumour. She died in 2019, at only 36. Berns made a huge impact on the then nascent gendercritical movement, and one Scottish feminist in particular. Shortly before Berns died, JK Rowling contacted her and later described her as “an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian”. So FWS became Smith, Calder and Budge, none of whom had any experience of campaigning. The most activism Calder had done was to convince her son’s school to move its PTA meetings from the schoolrooms to the pub. In 2018 the Scottish parliament passed a bill that said the governing bodies of public boards had to be “gender balanced”. But Budge realised that because the Scottish government insisted men can identify as women, the boards could be all-male and still be classified as “gender balanced”. In January 2019, they forked out for some sausage rolls, started speaking to MSPs and held their first event for the public at a hotel in Edinburgh. “We sold out, which was lovely, but the hotel received threats from activists,” says Calder. “The hotel, to their credit, didn’t cancel us, but they said we needed to pay for eight security guards, not just two. But because Eventbrite wouldn’t release the money we made from ticket sales until after the event, we had to pay for the security guards on our credit cards.” Trans activists have accused FWS of being funded by far-right American groups, which makes the women hoot with laughter: “Unless the American far right has set up hundreds of PayPal accounts that give us £2.50 a month, it’s not true,” says Smith. “They keep throwing insults at us, but none of them stick because they’re nonsense. First they said we’re transphobes, then they called us homophobes, then it was bigots, now they say we’re pro- Trump. It’s all completely ridiculous,” says Calder. '' The socalled bastions of free speech let us down By 2020, the Scottish government and Sturgeon was increasingly focused on passing the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which would usher in self-ID, and lower the legal age when young people can transition to 16. Calder is still amazed at how Scotland went “so batshit crazy” about gender. “I think a lot of this is about Section 28 [a law which banned the promotion of homosexuality],” says Budge. “A lot of people who are still in the Scottish government made wrong choices then, and they saw gender as a way of proving they weren’t homophobic.” That same year, Smith was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a single mastectomy. Ten days after her surgery, she gave a speech in front of the Scottish parliament, a pillow clamped under her arm. “Having gone through a mastectomy myself, which I needed to save my life, I am disgusted by people who celebrate giving mastectomies to healthy young women as a ‘gender-confirming’ surgery. I think it is genuinely wicked,” she says. FWS’s argument with the Scottish government boiled down to whether the Equality Act 2010 says that a trans woman — ie a biological male — with a gender recognition certificate, which can be bought for £6, is the same as a female. The Scottish government said it did. FWS disagreed. In February last year, the women were given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court of Session ruled against them. FWS crowdsourced donations to fund their legal challenge; Rowling donated £70,000. “It was a big gamble, but we decided the appeal was worth it, because even if we lost, it would show that the law currently makes no sense, and that would have been hard work for them over the road,” Calder says, with a wry look in the direction of parliament. In the 24 hours after its win, FWS was inundated with abuse, much of it consisting of obscene personal insults. They’re used to this, but it never fails to amaze: “It would never occur to us to send messages like this, or to call our opponents ugly. But we get this every day,” says Smith. Their work is nowhere near done: a series of gender-based legal disputes are coming up in Scotland, and they hope their success means their organisation will be a little less hand-to-mouth. But for now, the mood is jubilant — they have an answer to the question that stumped politicians for years: what is a woman? A woman is officially a woman. “So there’s only one thing to do now,” says Calder. “Have a gigantic party.”
‘Older judges don’t speak for me’ — how generations are divided by trans rights ruling Lottie Hayton Trans rights groups taking part in a protest in central London yesterday against the new ruling Georgina Wright made the decision not to call or message her parents since Wednesday, the day the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Wright, 23, from London, has been avoiding the argument she anticipates will eventually erupt when her family sit down for Easter lunch this weekend. “My mum is an old-school feminist,” she said. “I get she’s from the generation where women really had to fight for equality but I just don’t think trans people having rights takes away from my rights as a ‘cis woman’. It’s infuriating having to hear their recycled arguments about loos and pronouns.” Wright’s experience reflects the sometimes gaping divide between the opinions of younger and older people on transgender issues, a schism that Wednesday’s judgment has thrown into stark relief. According to a YouGov survey conducted last year, 61 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 think transgender people should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one recorded at birth, compared with only 36 per cent of those aged 65 and older and 47 per cent of those aged 50 to 64. The judges in the ruling — Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, — were aged between 61 and 73, something that did not go unnoticed by Wright and her peers. “The Supreme Court ruling just feels like a step backwards,” she said. “A win for bigotry. How is it that a group of older judges who aren’t representative of the diversity of the UK population have been allowed to speak for us?” Many trans people’s daily lives will be immediately affected by the ruling. Trans women who were recorded male at birth no longer have the right to use a space or service designated as “women only”. This applies even if they have a gender recognition certificate, which allows people to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate. Dr Aaron Gabriel, 32, is a trans man from Manchester. “The ruling was not a surprise but it was still a gut punch,” Gabriel said. “Our lives are going to get so much harder, especially those of us who are women, and this will empower people to be even more violent towards trans people than they already are.” The Scottish women who campaigned for the recognition of biological sex are passionately feminist, as are their supporters — women such as JK Rowling. They view some rights — trans women using female bathrooms, for example — as an infringement of their own rights. Many younger feminists disagree. Melissa Meadows, 31, is a mental health nursing student from Scotland. “I’m a proud feminist and, for me, feminism has to be intersectional, recognising that all women, including trans women, deserve the same rights, safety and respect,” she said. “Anything less isn’t true feminism in my opinion.” Meadows disagrees with the idea that trans rights impinge on women’s rights. “It’s not true,” she said. “I think older feminists holding on to that belief are stuck in a version of feminism that doesn’t work any more and it needs to evolve.” Of course, young people are not a homogeneous bloc. The percentage of young people who do not believe that trans people should be able to identify as a different gender has risen since 2022, from 17 per cent to 25 per cent. William, 24, who works in politics, felt relief on Wednesday: “Even as a heterosexual man who isn’t directly affected, for my female friends, family — and especially, should I be fortunate [enough] to have daughters in the future — I am pleased that this ruling should halt the erosion of their rights.” William was unwilling to give his surname because the issue can be so toxic. Even young people like Joe, 26, who was disappointed by the ruling, want discussions to be more nuanced. The day after the decision, Joe’s Instagram feed juxtaposed supporters of Andrew Tate posting antitrans content against posts reading “trans women are women”. Joe, a gay man who works in finance, feels there is little room for moderation. He is aligned with David Cameron’s fiscally conservative but socially liberal brand of Conservatism. “I think most people take a pretty binary view and are usually fully supportive of one side or the other. [But] we need to think more deeply than this,” he said. “When you frame trans rights as a debate, you’re starting out from an antitrans point of view,” said Gabriel. Although devastated by Wednesday’s ruling, Gabriel is hopeful that it might motivate trans allies. “People are starting to realise that it isn’t enough to just say you support trans people, you have to do something.”
I lost friends and a job in the trans witch-hunt Hordes of cowards caved in to the fantasy. A few brave women did not Hadley Freeman Hadley Freeman ‘We don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.” The first time I heard that sentence was in August 2015: I was meeting one of my editors at The Guardian, where I then worked, before going on maternity leave. Along with the usual banal pregnancy chat — did I feel ready? Of course not, you never do! Etc etc — I suggested that maybe the paper should be careful about running too many columns by male writers insisting “trans women are women”. Should men define what a woman is, I asked, especially in a newspaper that prides itself on its feminist bona fides? That’s when I got hit with the wrong-side-ofhistory smackdown for what would be far from the last time. “The wrong side of history”: it’s how Mridul Wadhwa, then chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), justified describing female rape victims as “bigoted” in 2021 if they asked for a female counsellor rather than a male one who identified as a woman (like Wadhwa). And it’s why advertisers including Barclays pulled their money out of Mumsnet when the women’s website dared to allow its users to discuss their concerns about how trans rights were conflicting with women’s rights. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the wrong side of history is not where a lot of people believed it to be, when it came to the unanimous verdict that a woman is a biological fact, not a fantastical feeling. Whither the wrong-side-of-history folk now? Well, Wadhwa resigned last year from ERCC after an investigation found he failed to prioritise the needs of rape victims, despite that being his literal job. Only weeks after Mumsnet’s founder, Justine Roberts, learnt her site had been blacklisted “by Barclays’ top brass” for committing crimes of feminism, the bank’s then boss, Jes Staley, resigned following an investigation into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. It is entirely unsurprising to me that so many of those who signed up to this flat-Earth ideology and insisted women should shut up and let men do whatever they wanted should turn out to be so morally bankrupt. Because who else would take such a stance? What kind of man would insist on competing in a sports match against women, despite their obvious discomfort, or tell women they knew what a woman was better than them? To give in to the activists’ demands was no big deal, women were told, but to refuse was fascism. I’ve been writing about the effects of gender ideology for more than a decade, and in that time I’ve had to leave a job I thought I’d have for ever, I’ve been publicly denounced by people I thought were friends and I’ve been blacklisted from more events than I can count. Of course there are lovely trans people, but the activists who have dominated this discussion for the past decade are bullies. Those who caved in to them — politicians, the NHS, the liberal media, the police, schools, publishers, journalists too scared to cover this issue properly — are cowards and stooges. In their absence, extraordinary women such as Susan Smith, Trina Budge and Marion Calder, better known as For Women Scotland, whom I have interviewed this week for The Sunday Times, stepped in to stop the wholescale theft of women’s rights. And what did they get for their trouble? A lot of abuse. From David Lammy to David Tennant, the roll-call of right-side-of-history men who enthusiastically denigrated women for saying primary school-level scientific truths could fill a phone book. The LBC radio presenter James O’Brien couldn’t even grasp why women would be happy about Wednesday’s ruling: “Do you pause and ask yourself, how did I end up on the same team as [Trump]?” he smirked, his brain audibly leaking out of his ears. Well, James, how’d you end up on the side that accuses rape victims of bigotry when they ask for a female counsellor? A roll-call of men enthusiastically denigrated women Trans people are still protected from discrimination by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, but the ludicrous era of self-ID and male “lesbians” and “trans women are women” is over. Activists insist — with no evidence — the verdict makes trans women “unsafe” and their “existence is threatened”. Women who have been in abusive relationships will recognise the tactics: say what I want or I will hurt myself, or you. They claim the result is “an overreach”, but if those same activists hadn’t overreached themselves and insisted biological sex is irrelevant, and any woman who disagreed should be screamed at, cancelled and pushed out on an ice floe, none of this would have happened. Their tactics have hurt women, children and trans people. No wonder the formerly ubiquitous Stonewall and Mermaids are now noticeable only by their absence. So now it’s April 2025, and what we knew 10, 20, 1,000 years ago has been confirmed: a woman is a woman. What a terrible waste of time, money and energy this has all been. On the other hand, how clarifying: now we know who believes in reality and who doesn’t. Who is brave and who isn’t. Who thinks men can magically become women and children can be born in the wrong body, and who doesn’t. Maybe every generation has its witch-hunt, its Joe McCarthy era, when innocent people are denounced for unimaginably bizarre reasons, and we’ve now lived through ours. I’ve lost friends but I’ve gained so many funnier, smarter ones, women — gay and straight — I never would have met were it not for all the men screaming that trans women are women. That’s how I explain the past decade to myself: this was a test. Some passed. A lot more failed.
I’ve felt unsafe on pitch — trans ruling helps to protect women Alyson Rudd Alyson Rudd Next image › There was a malicious glint in his eye and the first thing I thought was: “Where did he come from?” The second thing I thought was: “He’s bloody broken my wrist.” Until that moment I had been very lucky indeed that the men’s team I played for usually faced opposition that either did not mind there was a woman involved or, if they did, had the good sense to take advantage of my relative lack of physical strength without trying to injure me in the process. I had to argue to be included to start with. One or two chaps felt uncomfortable about the prospect of me being injured just by being dispossessed but once we established that what we all really had in common was a love for the beautiful side of the game; the patterns, the passing, the crossing, the volleys, the side-foot finishes and not the two-footed tackles or elbows in the face, then we found a heartening equilibrium. I really loved those matches. We played in the park in the summer and under the floodlights on concrete in the winter. I once skidded on my face across the hard surface a few weeks before my wedding day and some gravel became embedded in my bottom lip and made it swell, and everyone joked it was the best sort of injury to get before my big day because some girls would have paid good money for pumped-up lips. It was my choice to play with and against men. OK, it did not feel like a choice because there were no casual midweek teams comprised of women playing against women, but still, there were no blurred lines. I was female, the rest were male and I took on the risks knowingly. The growth of women’s football meant it became possible for women to seek out women and play only against women. Unless, of course, a man who identified as female was involved. The lines became blurred, so blurred that we ended up in a society where a 17- year-old girl was suspended from playing for six games for asking a player on a women’s team if they were a man when he was clearly not a biological woman. The teenager’s safety or perplexity were not important to anyone, bizarrely, and rather the feelings of the man took precedence. There followed some woolly guidance from the FA involving case-by-case basis reviews and testosterone levels but, as I found to my cost, men can hurt women on the pitch without doing anything illegal. My assailant simply aimed very hard indeed straight at my face. I was taking my turn in goal and instinctively lifted my hands to block the shot that was intended, I have no doubt, to hurt me. The whistle had gone, most other players were looking down the pitch and in that brief second I felt as exposed as if I had been in a dark alley facing a violent mugger. I felt my wrist snap and then turn to jelly. The bloke disappeared, no one claimed to even know who he was. He was small and wiry and young but he knew I was the fragile one and that he had the advantage of being male. Those blurred lines can now be resolved thanks to the UK Supreme Court ruling which came to the notso-illogical conclusion that women are defined by their biological sex. And yet, rather than this be celebrated as the triumph of common sense, as a ruling which supports women’s lives and rights, there has been so much hand-wringing that I fear the trans lobby will become even more aggressive but with an added dash of martyrdom. “ I felt as exposed as if I had been in a dark alley facing a violent mugger. I felt my wrist snap and turn to jelly The manner in which the news was handled by the BBC was, frankly, grim. Some of the interviews did not even try to be balanced. Female campaigners were accused of ignoring trans women who needed female spaces. On Radio 5 Live an otherwise excellent breakfast host had to be calmly reprimanded by Helen Joyce, the author and gendercritical activist, for jumping straight to what the ruling meant for devastated trans women instead of asking what it meant for half the population. It felt as if the Beeb had sat staff down fresh from a meeting with Stonewall and told them something very unpleasant had just happened in the Supreme Court. Nothing unpleasant happened. Women are being given the chance to make real choices, to be protected, to feel safe where they need to feel safe. Football finally found women and women at last found their way back to football only for that glorious state of affairs to be undermined by rule-makers who simply did not care what was best for them. The highest court in the land does not support them to do that any more and this should be a cause for relief, not continued vitriol.
Mail on Sunday [4]
MINISTERS IN WHATSAPP PLOT TO DEFY TRANS RULING As Supreme Court judgment piles pressure on Starmer to protect women-only spaces, leaked messages reveal revolt on frontbench The Mail on Sunday20 Apr 2025By Glen Owen POLITICAL EDITOR PROTEST: Transrights activists on the Churchill statue in Parliament Square yesterday LABOUR ministers are secretly plotting to defy the landmark court ruling that men who change gender are not legally women, leaked WhatsApp messages obtained by The Mail on Sunday have revealed. The Government claimed to welcome the Supreme Court judgment – but the exchanges reveal the private fury on Sir Keir Starmer’s frontbench, with ministers planning to hold a meeting this week to ‘decide a way forwards’ and ‘organise’. In the messages, sent on Thursday evening, Culture Minister Sir Chris Bryant joined an attack on Baroness Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), who earlier that day had said that the ruling – that a woman is defined by biological sex – clearly meant trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports. When an MP said that Lady Falkner’s words were ‘pretty appalling’, Mr Bryant wrote: ‘Agreeed [sic].’ Last night, with the Government in turmoil, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote to the Cabinet Secretary calling for an investigation into a statement by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who reacted to the judgment by saying: ‘We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.’ In her letter to Sir Chris Wormald, who is also the Head of the Civil Service, Ms Badenoch argued that it could constitute a ‘false public statement’ – because last June Ms Phillipson declared that trans women with penises should be able to use single-sex spaces. Writing on the WhatsApp group of LGBT+ Labour MPs, Home Office Minister Dame Angela Eagle said: ‘The ruling is not as catastrophic as it seems but the EHRC guidance might be and there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting’ – a possible reference to the British Transport Police’s interim announcement that strip searches of trans women would now be done by male officers, not female. Dame Angela added that ‘we have to get on with doing the stuff we said we’d do in the manifesto’, which included a pledge to protect ‘the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity’. Another MP on the WhatsApp group wrote that it was ‘sad to see some institutions choose to ignore the Supreme Court’s very strong line that trans people are protected by the Equality Act too’. Dame Angela replied: ‘They won’t be feeling that way now and we need to remember that and organise.’ MPs agreed with her suggestion that they should seek a meeting ‘ASAP with [the] relevant Equality Minister’ after the Commons returns from Easter recess this week. News of the WhatsApp messages came as thousands of trans rights campaigners descended on central London yesterday to rally against the landmark ruling. The ‘emergency demonstration’ ended with at least two statues in Parliament Square daubed with graffiti, with ‘fag rights’ and a heart painted on the banner held by suffragist Millicent Fawcett. ‘Trans rights are human rights’ was also sprayed on the pedestal bearing a memorial to South African military leader Jan Christian Smuts. Yesterday, other bodies vowed to challenge the ruling, with teachers voting at a conference in Liverpool to stop schools making ‘kneejerk’ changes to their trans policies until the government issues further guidance. The NASUWT union claimed the judgment could lead schools to make rules which put transgender teachers ‘at risk of harm’. Labour has come under fire over its response to last Wednesday’s unanimous verdict. Health Minis Dame Angela Eagle Let’s meet about this when we get back from Easter recess to decide a way forwards – the ruling is not as catastrophic as it seems but the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] guidance might be & there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting Chris Murray Definitely agree, a meeting early next week would be good Steve Race I thought that the EHRC Chair on Today [saying the ruling meant trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports] was pretty appalling this morning Sir Chris Bryant Agreeed [sic] ter Karin Smyth failed four times to clarify which changing room trans women should now use. In contrast, Lady Falkner – who hailed the ruling for bringing ‘clarity’ – told the BBC: ‘Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex. ‘If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single-sex.’ She also agreed that the ‘enormously consequential’ court decision also meant trans women could not take part in female sports. Lady Falkner, whose watchdog is working on an updated code of conduct for public services, said the NHS would now be pursued if it did not follow new guidelines on single-sex spaces. Current guidance says trans people should be ‘accommodated’ according to how they ‘identify’. In 2023, Lady Falkner survived attempts to oust her from her job because of her staunch defence of women’s rights after the Mail exposed claims of an ‘ideologically motivated witch-hunt’ against her. Interviewing her on the BBC’s Today programme last week, Nick Robinson said her position ‘has brought you extraordinary levels of personal grief’ – including once being described as a ‘Nazi who ‘Terrible abuse for standing up for women’ wants to dehumanise trans people’. Mims Davies, Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, said: ‘In public Keir Starmer and his Cabinet pretended they supported the Supreme Court judgment. But in private we know Labour are seething, as these texts prove. ‘Like so many brave women, Baroness Falkner has suffered terrible abuse for standing up for the rights of women and girls. Now we know Labour will do all they can to undermine her work. ‘The Prime Minister needs to come out and say he will support the EHRC guidance when it comes out. Anything less will be Labour betraying the rights of women once again.’ Pressed on the issue last year, Ms Phillipson said: ‘If you were someone that had gone through that formal process of recognition you are, to all intents and purposes, for legal purposes, regarded as being in a different gender regardless of the sex into which you were born... I would think that in those cases people would be using female toilets.’ In her letter to Sir Chris about Ms Phillipson’s apparent new stance, Ms Badenoch said: ‘If ministers or advisers are found to have instructed civil servants to issue misleading material, then there is a clear route to resolve through resignation.’ Sir Chris and Dame Angela declined to comment. MAC IS AWAY Article Name:MINISTERS IN WHATSAPP PLOT TO DEFY TRANS RULING Publication:The Mail on Sunday Author:By Glen Owen POLITICAL EDITOR Start Page:1 End Page:1
Final proof that party I once loved is hopelessly out of touch The Mail on Sunday20 Apr 2025By PROFESSOR JO PHOENIX ● Jo Phoenix is a professor of criminology and co-founder of Open University’s Gender Critical Research Network. IWAS once a member of the Labour Party – but not any more. I left in 2021, the day that David Lammy dismissed women’s rights campaigners like me as ‘dinosaurs... hoarding their rights’. For good measure, he claimed that men can grow a cervix. I could see then that, on the issue of trans rights, my party had lost the plot. It had veered so wildly from what I felt was right – and frankly what the vast majority of the public feels is right – that I could no longer support it. The Supreme Court ruling should have been a wake-up call for Labour but the party has shown itself to be hopelessly out of touch once again. The silence from the PM on such a socially transformative ruling is tin-eared enough. But now the likes of Home Office Minister Dame Angela Eagle are plotting to thwart the judgment in a cowardly WhatsApp group of Labour MPs. Comments like hers that ‘some public bodies are overreacting’ to the ruling are dangerous, particularly for organisations having to implement the court’s findings. Has the British Transport Police, in announcing it would amend its strip-search guidelines, ‘overreacted’? Of course not, and to say so is deliberately misleading, but it shows how deep the rot has set in. On and on this WhatsApp group goes, its members burying their heads deeper and deeper in the sand. The Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner, is branded ‘appalling’ after she welcomed the ruling’s ‘clarity’ in a radio interview. Are these politicians saying that they are going to ignore what the law says? You either act according to the law or you break the law. Even after the ruling, Health Minister Karin Smyth struggled to answer when asked whether trans women should be able to use female-only changing rooms. Women’s Minister Bridget Phillipson may have said that the ruling brings ‘clarity and confidence’, but her disingenuous comment that Labour has ‘always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex’ is nothing short of gaslighting. Labour peer Harriet Harman, herself one of the architects of the Equality Act, high-handedly declared the verdict ‘correctly interprets’ current legislation – as if to say that the ruling was what Labour had always meant. This is the party that pledged at the election to halve violence against women, but how – if it cannot still define what a woman is? It’s insulting to those, like me, who have spent years caught up in this Kafkaesque debate – and suffered for it. As an academic accused of transphobia and hounded out of my job with the Open University, I have suffered death threats and online harassment. Last year, I successfully sued my former employers but not before I’d been driven to breaking point. So to be in the public gallery at the Supreme Court last week was utterly electrifying. The ruling was simple: that women are a category of people who deserve respect and dignity, and trans people are a category who deserve respect and dignity. But Labour didn’t get the memo. One day, if and when the party gets itself out of this mess, I may rejoin. But, by failing to keep up with the law, they are the ones in danger of being branded dinosaurs. Article Name:Final proof that party I once loved is hopelessly out of touch Publication:The Mail on Sunday Author:By PROFESSOR JO PHOENIX ● Jo Phoenix is a professor of criminology and co-founder of Open University’s Gender Critical Research Network. Start Page:5 End Page:5
Zealots will never admit they’re wrong The Mail on Sunday20 Apr 2025 FANATICS never give up. They are so convinced that they are right and good, and that everyone else is wrong and bad, that a mere Supreme Court ruling against them barely gives them pause. This is so with the transgender rights enthusiasts who are still numerous and influential in the upper levels of the Labour Party and the radical movement it supports. As The Mail on Sunday reports today, actual ministers are openly organising a hostile response to the court decision that a woman must be defined by objective biology, not by a subjective judgment. It is women, including many radical and Left-wing women, who have been the fiercest opponents of the trans campaign. One of the militants’ main targets is the commendably rational Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Lady Falkner is hardly a crusted reactionary from Tory Clubland. She is a former Liberal Democrat with impeccably radical credentials. But transgender rights militants were appalled by her swift, sensible acceptance that the court ruling means trans women may not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports. There are parts of the Labour manifesto which might be read to suggest that the court had gone too far. But few of Labour’s actual voters can actually think so. The general delight with which the judgment was received reflected a growing public exasperation with the transgender rights cause. This movement is incomprehensible to millions, and disliked by most of those who do understand it. What sort of world do these zealots live in, where it is necessary to deny the blazingly obvious, and to fight against what is reasonable? They should recognise that they have been fairly defeated, and find a better cause to fight for. Article Name:Zealots will never admit they’re wrong Publication:The Mail on Sunday Start Page:20 End Page:20
Sunday Telegraph [3]
Front page
Bridgerton star chides ‘new low’ Rowling The Sunday Telegraph20 Apr 2025By Ruth Hallows A BRIDGERTON actress has attacked JK Rowling over her views on the Supreme Court’s transgender ruling. Nicola Coughlan criticised the Harry Potter author and vocal gender-critical campaigner after she posted a celebratory photo on X on Wednesday following the landmark court decision, showing her smoking a cigar and holding up a drink. In response, Coughlan shared a post on Instagram linking to an article headlined: “This is a new low for JK Rowling.” Underneath, she referred to HBO’s new Harry Potter series, writing: “Keep your new Harry Potter lads. Wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole.” Coughlan, 38, who also starred in Derry Girls, later uploaded a video to her Instagram saying that she was “completely horrified” by the court ruling, and encouraged her followers to donate to her fundraiser for Not A Phase, a trans charity. The Irish actress added that she would match donations up to €10,000 (£8,565), and has since raised nearly £100,000. The Supreme Court’s ruling was hailed as a victory by gender-critical campaigners and politicians. It followed a years-long legal battle between the campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman, and has provided much greater clarity than many expected. Rowling, a financial supporter of For Women Scotland, wrote on X: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.” The announcement coincided with the news that Severus Snape, the professor played by Alan Rickman in the film series, would be played by Paapa Essiedu, the 34-year-old British actor, in the HBO adaption, of which Rowling is an executive producer. The series has been plagued with controversy as a result of Rowling’s gender-critical stance. In October, industry sources told The Times that some people were reluctant to work with the author because they did not support her views, or feared abuse from those who disagree with her. A month later, HBO was forced to defend its decision to work with the writer, reminding the public that the author had a right to her “personal views”. The company said: “[Warner Bros has] been working with JK Rowling and in the Harry Potter business for over 20 years and called her contribution ‘invaluable’. “We are proud to once again tell the story of Harry Potter – the heart-warming books that speak to the power of friendship, resolve and acceptance. “JK Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, who played the lead roles in the films, have all distanced themselves from the author’s beliefs following her 2020 essay in which she argued “transgender women are women”. Article Name:Bridgerton star chides ‘new low’ Rowling Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Ruth Hallows Start Page:5 End Page:5

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: NHS advises GPs to neglect trans kids]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-nhs-advises-gpshttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-nhs-advises-gpsSun, 13 Apr 2025 09:10:50 GMTThe Trans Agenda

[13 April 2025]

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

It is utterly exhausting to be trans in the UK, or the US, right now. That’s the overwhelming feeling I’m left with as I wrap up this week’s edition. The news cycle may have been quieter than usual in the papers, but the relentlessness of it all remains steady.

The week ahead promises little reprieve. The Supreme Court verdict in the For Women Scotland case looms, and, regardless of how it lands, it will be trans people who feel the impact most acutely.

So, please, take care of yourselves, and remember - we’re in this together, and the fight will continue.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

For Women Scotland ruling to be delivered on Wednesday

  • The UK Supreme Court is set to rule on whether transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are legally recognised as women under the Equality Act. The case, brought by the anti-trans activist group For Women Scotland, challenges Scottish Government guidance that includes trans women in definitions of "woman" for the purpose of public policy and protections. Previous courts have upheld that sex is not limited to biological sex.

    The ruling is expected to have major implications for trans rights. The case is a test of our rights to equality, dignity, and legal protection.

NHS told to block sex marker changes for trans youth [Pulse]

  • NHS England has been ordered to halt issuing new records to under-18s who change gender, following a transphobe-led [Alice Sullivan] government review warning that omitting biological sex data risks patient safety, especially in screening and clinical care. It doesn’t. Wes Streeting said safeguarding children must come first, while still respecting gender identity where appropriate. He is currently doing neither of these things.

NHS begins work on care pathway for people who detransition [TransActual]

  • NHS England has started developing a new care pathway for people who wish to detransition. Seriously.

New NHS England guidance tells GPs not to share care for trans youth [Jolyon Maugham]

  • NHS England has issued new advice telling GPs not to enter shared care arrangements with private providers for under-18s seeking hormone treatment. In other words, to neglect them because Wes Streeting doesn’t like their choices. Apply this to any other medical situation you can think of, and you can see how this is nothing more than state-ordered discrimination that will endanger the lives of trans kids even further.

Wes Streeting under fire for silence over group linked to anti-trans abuse [Trans Safety Network]

  • The UK Health Secretary is facing mounting criticism after leaked messages revealed members of the Bayswater Support Group discussed sabotaging their trans children’s belongings and using chili sauce in makeup. Despite multiple warnings about the group’s abusive practices, Wes Streeting has continued to engage with them on trans ‘healthcare’ policy.

NHS seeks to close tribunal to public [Daily Record]

  • NHS Fife has requested that the public be excluded from the upcoming employment tribunal involving a ‘dispute’ over a trans doctor existing. The case, brought by nurse Sandie Peggie, is set to resume in July.

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

AROUND THE WORLD

Norway: Asylum for trans Americans

USA: Montana Republicans join Democrats to defeat anti-trans bill after powerful speech [Erin Reed]

  • 17 Montana Republicans broke ranks to help defeat SB164, a bill that would have criminalised providing gender-affirming care, even for parents merely passing through the state. The turnaround followed a powerful floor speech from nonbinary Representative SJ Howell, who warned against using felony charges to regulate medical decisions and undermine parental rights.

USA: Trump administration to release anti-trans review modelled on discredited UK and Florida reports [Erin Reed]

  • The Trump administration is preparing to release a biased “review” of transgender healthcare, expected to justify sweeping bans on gender-affirming care. Modelled after the Florida and UK Cass reviews, the report excludes medical experts and uses debunked concepts like “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

USA: Trump administration freezes school lunch funds in Maine over trans policy, prompting lawsuit [Erin Reed]

  • The Trump administration has stopped school lunch funding in Maine, citing the state’s support for trans rights as a Title IX violation. Maine is suing, calling the move unlawful and politically motivated.

USA: DOJ to enforce Trump’s transgender athlete ban in Maine as state refuses to comply [The Day]

  • The US Justice Department will enforce President Trump’s order to ban trans athletes in Maine schools after the state refused to comply with a federal mandate. Maine officials argue the policy violates Title IX and plan to fight in court, risking $358 million in federal education funding. There are believed to be two trans athletes in schools in Maine.

USA: Florida teacher sacked for respecting trans student’s name, sparking backlash [Erin Reed]

  • A Florida teacher lost her job, under a state law requiring parental consent, for using a trans student’s chosen name. Though officially dismissed for a policy violation, students, parents, and community members say it was targeted discrimination. A mass walkout, protests, and a petition have since pushed back against the decision.

USA: Health nominee wants ‘corrective care’ for trans people

Transgender how do you know? by H Lee Hurley

MEDIA

White House staff refuse to respond to journalists with pronouns in email signatures

  • The Trump administration has barred federal employees from using pronouns in their email signatures and is reportedly refusing to respond to journalists who include them.

New Statesman set to move even further right [New European]

  • The New Statesman has appointed former political editor of UnHerd, Tom McTague, as their new editor.

SPORT

FA continue to refuse to ban trans women

  • The FA has introduced a revised transgender inclusion policy that allows trans women to continue playing in amateur women’s football, provided they meet testosterone-based medical criteria. The updated rules, which took effect on April 1, maintain the FA’s commitment to inclusion while allowing for case-by-case assessments if concerns arise. Bigots pushing for a blanket ban were unsuccessful, yet again.

    The FA confirmed that no trans women are currently playing at elite level and stressed that any future decisions would continue to prioritise fairness and inclusion. They also noted that there only around 20 trans players from a pool of thousands playing.

Trans fencer removed from college team after opponent’s protest sparks national tantrum [Pink News]

  • A transgender fencer is no longer on Wagner College’s women’s team following a viral tantrum in which her cis opponent, Stephanie Turner, who has reportedly competed in mixed-gender competitions, refused to compete against her. Though Turner was disqualified for violating competition rules, the incident predictably ignited the tinderbox of conservative outrage. Turner has since been embraced by the right-wing grift-o-sphere, picking up a $5,000 bigot prize, amongst other things.

Protests grow as Canadian roller derby teams push back against US anti-trans orders [The Globe and Mail]

  • Roller derby teams across Canada are increasingly boycotting cross-border matches in protest of US anti-transgender policies enacted by the Trump administration. Citing safety risks and solidarity with gender-diverse players, athletes are cancelling games, creating travel safety protocols, and calling out the chilling impact of exclusionary laws, despite risks to their rankings.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here. Parliament is in recess until 22 April.

Monday 14 April

  • High Court holds first hearing in case brought by women against Andrew Tate

Tuesday 15 April

  • Jury selection begins in Harvey Weinstein retrial

  • 80 years ago: Bergen-Belsen liberated

🚨Wednesday 16 April

  • For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling

  • Report: Private rent and house price statistics

Thursday 17 April

  • Donald Trump hosts Giorgia Meloni at the White House

Friday 18 April

  • Luigi Mangione due to appear in federal court in New York

  • JD Vance expected to visit Italy

Saturday 19 April

  • 250 years ago: American Revolution began

SHORTS

  • A $600,000 federal grant to research feminine hygiene products was axed after US officials falsely labelled it a study on transgender menstrual cycles

THE PAPERS

Overall, the papers were slightly quieter this week than last and down a full 58% on the week before.

The drop can be attributed solely to the Mail, Guardian and Times reducing their output.

The Telegraph has not let up at all. 13 this week, compared to nine last and 12 the week before.

In contrast, the Times had just two while the Mail and Guardian had one each.

Headlines this week have included such delights as:

  • Nurse suspended after calling transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ [Telegraph]

  • Transgender inmates may get wigs and underwear [Mail]

  • Don’t use rapists’ preferred pronouns, judges told [Telegraph]

Whose bylines were on all these articles? Ben Rumsby, Charles Hymas, Daily Mail reporter, Daily Telegraph reporter, Ethan Croft, Jenny Johnston, Martin Ziegler, Michael Deacon, Michael Searles, Oliver Brown (x2), Sally Weale, Simon Johnson (x2), Telegraph editorial, Tim Sigworth, Will Bolton.

Quoted, mentioned or featured this week: Abigail Wilson, Andrea Williams, Christian Legal Centre, Darlington Nurses (x2), EHRC (x2), Emma Hilton, Fiona McAnena, For Women Scotland, Free Speech Union, Helen Joyce (x2), Jennifer Melle, JK Rowling (x3), Karina Conway, Kathleen Stock, Kellie-Jay Keen, Lynne Pinches, Martina Navratilova, Maya Forstater (x2), OFS, Prof Alice Sullivan (x2), Sex Matters (x3), Stephanie Turner, Sullivan Review, Tess White (x2), Toby Young, Wes Streeting, Women's Rights Network.

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 7 April - Sunday 13 April

Monday Total: 3

Telegraph [3]
Fencer Stephanie Turner on why she refused to compete against a biological male in a female event Stephanie Turner knows her refusal to fight biological male could trigger a backlash but insists she had to take stand The Daily Telegraph7 Apr 2025By Oliver Brown CHIEF SPORTS WRITER Taking the knee: Stephanie Turner signals her refusal to compete (left) and is black carded by an official It was a protest of quiet dignity but its message was heard around the world. Stephanie Turner, the 31-year-old fencer who last week dropped to one knee as a signal that she refused to compete against a biological male in a female event, has found herself acclaimed a “heroine” by JK Rowling for women’s rights. One moment she was an unknown athlete from Maryland in an ancient sport. The next, her predicament was drawing the ire of Martina Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon champion furiously claiming she had been thrown under the “gender bulls--- bus”. And yet in the 72 hours since Turner was disqualified from a tournament for upholding the sanctity of female sport, she has still not received a word of solidarity from the US Fencing Association, her governing body. “Not an email, not a call, not a text,” she sighs. The fact that she has been issued with a black card – the most serious punishment in fencing, normally reserved for egregious breaches of the sport’s code of honour – leaves her facing a protracted and potentially unpleasant investigation. “I may never get a fair bout in my life again,” she says. “It’s certainly going to be difficult for me to go to tournaments. People will know in advance that I’ll be there, because all our registrations are public. I’ll be doing this for my whole life. It’s going to be hard.” Turner’s motives in taking her memorable stand should not require forensic scrutiny. The instant she learnt Redmond Sullivan, who participated in men’s fencing as recently as 2023, would be in her bracket for the Cherry Blossom Open at the University of Maryland, she decided she would kneel as a forfeit if the two were drawn against each other. When the day came, she was true to her word, detonating global news coverage by telling the referee: “I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.” Sullivan’s path from a mediocre male career to eye-catching performances on the female stage has invited parallels with the case of Lia Thomas, the swimmer catapulted from obscurity in men’s races to winning a national collegiate title for women. In 2023, Sullivan was 29th in a men’s foil event, only to claim a state title in 2024 in the female category. “I have been waking up angry every day because of this,” says Turner, highlighting the USFA’S dereliction of duty over women’s safety. Enabling immutable male advantage in any contact sport involving women is dangerous, but doubly so when you add swords to the mix. “In sabre, there’s a definite risk of concussion, because there are shots to the head,” Turner explains. “In epee, it is a much heavier weapon, so you can get very bruised and bloodied if you are hit particularly hard by a man. In general it creates a psychological factor. If you’re on a strip facing a male opponent who is much larger than you, you go into flight mode, self-defence mode, where you’re not even thinking about technique or the bout. You’re just trying to survive.” Despite the particular risks in fencing, the USFA’S transgender policy is extraordinarily lax and confused, declaring that “athletes will be permitted to participate in a manner consistent with gender identity or expression, regardless of the gender associated with the sex they were assigned at birth”. A 12-month course of testosterone suppression is supposed to be mandatory at elite level, but no measurements are specified. “All you have to do is confirm you have lived as a woman for at least a year,” Turner says. “Nobody is checking any hormone levels, puberty blockers, or official documentation about being male or female. Grow your hair out, wear a wig, and you can enter the women’s division.” The USFA has been in turmoil since Turner’s action, issuing only a vapid statement that it “respected the viewpoints on all sides”. This is patently absurd when you consider how it has publicly sided with Sullivan, while throwing a woman out of a tournament simply for defending her sex-based rights. “The people there shut down all discussion of this topic,” she says. “They just direct you to the policy and insist they’re in the right. But the policy isn’t pro-women or pro-girls.” It is understood that two USFA directors, Damien Lehfeldt and Molly Hill, have repeatedly acquiesced to pressure from the trans lobby. Turner initially resolved to avoid events where she might confront a transgender opponent, before realising only direct intervention would work. She even asked a friend to record a video of the moment she knelt, for maximum impact. “I wanted to cause a fuss. With a black card, an investigation is forced to happen. I wanted to show all the women at that tournament that they didn’t have to fence if they didn’t want to.” Many women in fencing are terrified of speaking out, for fear of jeopardising the scholarships to Ivy League universities to which the sport is traditionally linked. Turner, though, appears content to be the outlier. “I have a ‘buck stops here’ type of mentality. I want my case to be the one that changes things, because I don’t want more women to feel they have to come out for a long battle. At my club, there are girls who are not even 5ft tall. In women’s fencing, they might have an opportunity. But when you start inundating their sport with men, they will have zero chance.” Previously a registered Democrat, Turner was persuaded to vote Republican at the last presidential election, out of exasperation at the unfairness she has endured. “Sometimes, it feels like my Democrat friends are lying directly to my face,” she says. “I get angry, because of the personal effect this has on my life. I took up fencing because I needed something competitive in my life, where I could make friends, find a lifelong source of exercise. I found so much love chasing the next tournament, the next result. It’s addictive. But it becomes dreadful when the cards are stacked against you.” Article Name:Fencer Stephanie Turner on why she refused to compete against a biological male in a female event Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Oliver Brown CHIEF SPORTS WRITER Start Page:12 End Page:12
NHS doctors shown how to ‘change’ sex of trans patients Tavistock ‘defies review’ by briefing on how to amend patients’ sex on public records to ‘avoid upset’ The Daily Telegraph7 Apr 2025By Michael Searles Health Correspondent NHS doctors have been taught how to help transgender patients re-register “with a new sex marker” on public records, in defiance of a recent review. In a briefing session for GPS and other clinical staff, top doctors at the adult gender identity clinic at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, explained “how to amend records accordingly to avoid subsequent upset and possible complaints”. The session, which was delivered on Thursday, explained various aspects of the care transgender patients receive, and advised GPS on how to refer them, maintain a “lifelong prescription of maintenance hormone therapy” and change their recorded sex. The advice defies a recent review by Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, who outlined the risks of conflating biological sex and gender when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific cancer screenings and safeguarding. In the session, Dr James Barrett, the lead doctor at the Tavistock’s adult gender identity clinic, explained to family doctors how to change sex markers, including on passports and at the bank. He told doctors: “Changing your name is really quite simple and easy, and once you’ve changed your name, you can re-register yourself in your new name and with a new sex marker in very many of the places where we’re all registered: at the bank, and the tax and benefits agency, and down the dentist and on your driving licence.” “To change the sex marker on your passport, the patient will need a letter. The letter can come from a primary care practitioner [a GP] or can come from the clinic.” The advice comes despite the Sullivan review recommending that transgender patients do not receive new NHS numbers and changed sex markers. The review cites the importance of biological sex in providing healthcare, for example when it comes to inviting patients for cancer screenings or for doctors to make a diagnosis about symptoms, for which the cause may differ based on a person’s sex. Prof Sullivan said “a confusion between sex and transgender and gender-diverse identities” had developed in recent years and there had been attempts to “merge these two things into one variable”. The Department of Health said the findings would be considered with “the gravity they deserve, ‘The ill-founded advice is particularly tone deaf given the ink on Sullivan ‘review is barely dry’ as it reforms gender identity services across the board” . It comes after The Telegraph revealed the General Medical Council is planning to remove sex and gender from the doctors’ register meaning patients will not be able to look it up. Helen Joyce, of human rights charity Sex Matters, said the “ill-founded advice to his peers is particularly tone-deaf given the ink on the review is barely dry”. “It is trans people who will be most harmed by destroying sex-based data records.” A spokesman for Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said: “Staff run information sessions for healthcare professionals. These involve clinician-to-clinician discussions about a range of issues including prescribing, maintenance hormone therapy, birth gender and its implications for routine cancer screening and cardiovascular outcomes.” Article Name:NHS doctors shown how to ‘change’ sex of trans patients Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Michael Searles Health Correspondent Start Page:8 End Page:8
Nurse suspended after calling transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ The Daily Telegraph7 Apr 2025By Daily Telegraph Reporter AN NHS nurse who called a transgender paedophile “Mr” has been suspended. Jennifer Melle was previously investigated and disciplined by St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, London, after refusing to refer to a child sex offender patient as a woman. After widespread coverage, she was suspended this week and accused of breaching the patient’s confidentiality. Following a five-minute meeting with a manager, she was ordered to collect her belongings and escorted out of the hospital in tears. She said: “Despite being the one placed at risk, I am the one being punished.” Last year, the patient, known only as Patient X, arrived from a men’s prison at Ms Melle’s ward. Ms Melle, the senior nurse, was told the patient wanted to self-discharge. Ms Melle spoke on the phone to a doctor outside the patient’s room, and referred to the patient as “mister” and “he”. She said she was discussing a catheter for a male person – a “real-life medical scenario that required accurate terminology”. Overhearing Ms Melle, the patient, who was born a man but identified as a woman, took issue with the male pronoun and title. The nurse replied she was “sorry I cannot refer to you as ‘her’ or ‘she’, as it’s against my faith and Christian values”. The patient said: “How about I call you n-----? Yes, black n-----.” The patient also lunged at her despite being restrained, she said. Ms Melle was investigated and disciplined by the hospital in October. She is filing a legal claim against the trust for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches. It is understood she will remain on full pay. Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust said it expects staff to follow the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s code of conduct, including “maintaining confidentiality for any patients in their care”. They added there “is no excuse for racially abusing our staff ”. Article Name:Nurse suspended after calling transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daily Telegraph Reporter Start Page:8 End Page:8

Tuesday Total: 3

The Guardian [1]
Universities urged to review trans equality policies after Sussex fine The Guardian8 Apr 2025Sally Weale Education correspondent England’s higher education regulator is writing to institutions with transgender equality policies similar to those of the University of Sussex, which was handed a record £585,000 fine last month for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The Office for Students (OfS) said it would not yet name the vicechancellors being contacted, “but we will be writing to a handful of providers where we have identified that they have – on the face of it – similar policies in this area to Sussex”. ne, 15 times larger than any previous penalty levied by the OfS, sent shock waves through the sector, prompting many universities to review their policies and contact lawyers for advice. It followed a three-and-a-half-year investigation into the university’s treatment of Kathleen Stock, who resigned after she became the target of protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights. After the ruling, Stock said many institutions still had policies “with the very clauses the OfS has ruled against”. Yesterday, Times Higher Education (THE) reported that it had seen a letter to vice-chancellors from Arif Ahmed, the OfS’s director for free speech and academic freedom, that urged universities to consider whether they were meeting their own regulatory obligations in light of the Sussex investigation. According to the THE, Ahmed wrote: “If you are not doing so already, I encourage you to review relevant policies in light of the OfS’s findings … and consider the steps you may need to take to ensure the university is meeting its regulatory obligations in these areas. “We took action to ensure that students … are exposed to a wide range of academic thought and argument. Our action also ensures that academic staff can teach and research lawful topics with confidence, even if they are controversial.” The OfS ruling focused on a trans and non-binary equality policy statement passed in 2018, which it said had “a chilling effect” that could result in self-censorship by staff and students. One clause required academics to “positively represent trans people and trans lives” in course materials. Sussex is planning to take legal action to overturn the fine. It claimed the findings meant it was now all but impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying. An OfS spokesperson said: “None of this means providers can’t have policies which set out how they will protect students from harassment – indeed, our new harassment condition will require them to do so.” Article Name:Universities urged to review trans equality policies after Sussex fine Publication:The Guardian Author:Sally Weale Education correspondent Start Page:19 End Page:19
Telegraph [2]
Way of the World Michael Deacon The Daily Telegraph8 Apr 2025 Almost every time we glance at the news these days, there appear to be fresh reasons for gloom. Still, we mustn’t let ourselves become too downcast. Because we do have at least one piece of good news to celebrate. Labour politicians have suddenly realised the importance of free speech. This miraculous conversion appears to have taken place over the weekend, after Israel denied entry to two Labour MPS. The Israeli immigration ministry accused Abtisam Mohamed (the MP for Sheffield Central) and Yuan Yang (the MP for Earley & Woodley) of planning to “spread anti-israel hatred”. Ms Mohamed has previously accused Israel of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and “ethnic cleansing”, and called for a UK ban on Israeli goods. As for Ms Yang, in January she called for sanctions against Israeli ministers. In response to Israel’s decision, senior Labour figures are united in outrage. They simply can’t believe that a Western nation would deny entry to democratically elected politicians, purely for expressing opinions of which its government disapproves. Take, for example, the veteran Labour MP and former Foreign Office minister Sir Chris Bryant. On Sunday, he indignantly tweeted: “What price free speech? What price democracy?” Excellent questions. I only wonder whether he paused to consider them in 2017, before he wrote to Theresa May, the then prime minister, calling on her to ban Donald Trump from entering Britain. Trump was then, as now, the democratically elected president of the USA. Yet Sir Chris believed that he should be denied entry to our country, because on Twitter the president had shared three videos that Sir Chris deemed to be “Islamophobic”. Perhaps these videos were indeed offensive. But even if so, would it really have been right to block a visit from the elected leader of a Western ally, just for retweeting them? What price free speech? What price democracy? Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch party PVV, might ask the same thing. In February 2009, the then Labour government blocked him from entering the UK, because it objected to comments he’d made about Islam. Jacqui Smith, the home secretary at the time, said she believed that his “statements about Muslims and their beliefs” would “threaten community harmony”. The fact that Mr Wilders was then, as now, a democratically elected politician from a friendly Western nation made no difference. The Labour government disapproved of his opinions, so it kept him out. Still, times have clearly changed. In 2025, Labour evidently believes that elected politicians must be free to enter any country they choose, even if that country’s government considers their opinions to be hateful. David Lammy, our Foreign Secretary, has said that Israel’s refusal to admit the two Labour MPS is “unacceptable”, and sternly declared: “I have made clear to my counterparts in the Israeli government that this is no way to treat British parliamentarians.” I wonder if he and his colleagues recall what Mr Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian, said in February 2009. Asked whether he had a message for the Labour government that had just barred him from entering Britain, Mr Wilders said it was “a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian”, and added: “Even if you don’t like me and don’t like the things I say, then you should let me in for freedom of speech. If you don’t, you are looking like cowards.” Perhaps Labour would now like to prove that it’s changed, by inviting Mr Wilders to visit our country, as the Government’s honoured guest. To parents, it may seem absurd for schoolchildren to be taught that Joan of Arc was “non-binary”. For one thing, she lived around 600 years before the term was coined. In any case, evidence to support the suggestion is thin on the ground. If, as Joan was led to the stake, she loudly reminded her executioners to refer to her as elles rather than elle, witnesses appear to have taken no note of it. Even so, I’m not going to criticise Collins, the publisher, for promoting this questionable claim in an anthology of school teaching materials. Because it’s given me an idea. I’m going to write a school history textbook of my own. On every page, I’m going to ensure that it rigorously reflects all of today’s most fashionable progressive views. So not only will Joan of Arc be nonbinary, but Emmeline Pankhurst will be trans, Einstein will be a sex worker, and Mozart will be a disabled woman of colour. Meanwhile, the row over the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays will at last be resolved: they were actually written by an Eritrean asylum seeker. In addition, my book will finally dare to reveal the truth about some of history’s greatest villains. Osama bin Laden was actually an evangelical Christian, Pol Pot was a capitalist, and Idi Amin was white. In no time, I feel sure, my book will be stocked by every school in the land. Article Name:Way of the World Michael Deacon Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:14 End Page:14
Oliver Brown Fair sport sacrificed altar of gender ideology The Daily Telegraph8 Apr 2025Chief Sports Writer Injustice: Harriet Haynes (left) and Lucy Smith, both biological males, facing each other in the final of the Ultimate Pool Series women’s event in Wigan John Oliver, the British comedian whose viral rants have made him an unlikely standard bearer for liberal America, broadcast his latest sophomoric skit on transgender athletes late on Sunday night. It was full of his usual fallacies: that biological males depriving women of sporting glory was somehow analogous to taller basketball players competing against shorter ones, or to Michael Phelps dominating swimming despite being “half-dolphin”. And yet the timing could not have been worse. For at the very moment this segment dropped, portraying sport’s trans scandal as a niche issue, a women’s pool final in Wigan was being contested by two trans-identifying males. The contrast was grimly revealing. On one side of the Atlantic, a comic preaching to the converted in his New York studio was demeaning the integrity of female sport for clicks. On the other, each woman at that pool tournament was feeling the painful cost of her spineless administrators sacrificing her right to fair sport on the altar of gender ideology. Whether you regard pool as a fringe pursuit is immaterial. This is a category issue: sports are organised by sex to reflect that, in physiology, men and women are immutably different, with profound implications for fairness. The travesty of Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith facing off for a female title despite both being born male sends a stark signal: that if you continue to enable this erosion of fairness in the name of inclusion, the last people standing in women’s sport will be men. Women at the vanguard have been warning of this moment for years. They were even doing so in Wigan on Sunday, with the Manchester branch of the Women’s Rights Network holding up “Save Women’s Sports” banners to highlight what was about to unfold. And now we see the logical endgame, where Haynes and Smith combine to render the very notion of a women’s competition meaningless. For Oliver and his ilk, the questions are simple. How much more of this injustice are you content to sit back and mock? How much longer will you delude yourselves that it is not happening when the ultimate rebuke to that claim is staring you in the face? Trans activists pretend that no male advantage in pool exists. Try telling that to Lynne Pinches, who If you enable this erosion of fairness in name of inclusion, the last people standing in women’s sport will be men in 2023 forfeited her chance of a national championship by refusing to play Haynes, later turning down a professional contract on the grounds she was at a competitive disadvantage. Pinches has spelt out the rationale: that men are taller, able to reach further, and with longer fingers necessary to bridge when the balls are clustered. Her arguments are substantiated by Dave Alciatore, a master instructor and author of The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards, who writes: “Men generally have more strength and faster-twitch muscles that make it easier to execute many shots – especially power shots like the break and power draw – with greater accuracy, control and consistency.” Even without these physical disparities, why are women not entitled to say no to men colonising their sport? There is a reason why the transgender lobby is often characterised as a men’s rights movement, and it is because women are cast, time and again, as unconsenting vehicles in the affirmation of male fantasy. To anybody still demanding why we cannot all just be kind and inclusive, consider this: the adverse impact of this inclusion drive is endured, without exception, by women. You do not see women trying to make it in men’s cycling, or swimming, or fencing, or disc golf, where Abigail Wilson walked off the course in protest at being forced to play a transgender opponent last Friday. You do not see women gatecrashing the final of the men’s pool. And that is because basic biology dictates the benefits in sport flow in only one direction, with mediocre males annexing victories and medals once they start masquerading as female. To listen to Oliver’s justification of this absurdity was to wonder if he had paid any attention these past five years. His deployment of the “Phelps gambit” – the idea of a man’s sporting advantage over a woman being roughly akin to the one Phelps, the 23-time Olympic champion swimmer, enjoyed over his rivals – was especially risible. As Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist, has highlighted, Phelps’s edge over his nearest pursuer in the 2004 Olympic 100metres butterfly final was 0.08 per cent. But what about the gap between his time and that of Petria Thomas, winner of the equivalent women’s event that summer? 12.62 per cent. It is staggering that Oliver imagines he can make a valid comparison between two entirely distinct phenomena: individual advantage versus systematic advantage. Phelps was competing within his designated sex class, not crossing over into another. If you were being kind, you might accuse those conflating these issues of a bad-faith argument. It is worse than this, though. Never mind bad faith – the label trans zealots routinely slap on their detractors – this is about bad science, bad logic, bad morals. JK Rowling had a succinct message for Oliver after watching his defence of the indefensible: “Read the f------ room.” And you wish he would. His intervention felt like it belonged in 2020, not 2025. Changes in policy have long since drowned out the bleatings of ideologues, with the global governing bodies in the major Olympic sports of athletics, swimming, cycling and rowing all deciding that biology should trump the cult of gender ID. Unfortunately, there are hold-outs such as the Ultimate Pool Group, still in thrall to the misconception womanhood can be defined by “lived experience” rather than truth. But the dial has shifted decisively. There is a far clearer understanding today of the perils confronting women’s sport if ideology takes precedence over reality. A final between two biological males in female pool offers a salutary reminder.* Article Name:Oliver Brown Fair sport sacrificed altar of gender ideology Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Chief Sports Writer Start Page:12 End Page:12

Wednesday Total: 0

Thursday Total: 2

Daily Mail [1]
Transgender inmates may get wigs and underwear Daily Mail10 Apr 2025Daily Mail Reporter TRANSGENDER prisoners should be given access to a taxpayer-funded wardrobe of wigs and underwear to support them on their ‘journey’, a jails watchdog has said. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland made the call in response to concern that these items are too ‘difficult to source’ for male criminals behind bars who identify as women. It comes amid a row over trans prisoners following high-profile cases. Serial rapist Smith complained of the difficulty of accessing items in jail such as wigs ‘to live in the body of a female before I have... surgery’. Last night Scottish Tory equalities spokesman Tess White said: ‘Taxpayers will be appalled the ‘Criminals are pandered to’ needs of male-bodied criminals are being pandered to in this vein. ‘Questions will rightly be raised about the scale of effort being poured into supporting those on their “transgender journey” given the crisis of staffing and overcrowding in Scotland’s jails.’ A Scottish Prison Service spokesman said: ‘The health and wellbeing of all who live in our establishments is a key priority, and our staff work hard to ensure their rights and needs are met. ‘Transgender individuals in custody are managed on an individualised basis, and those entitled to gender-affirming items can purchase these themselves, or access healthcare-related items through the NHS.’
Telegraph [1]
Give trans inmates free pants and wigs, says watchdog Taxpayers would foot bill for prisoners’ ‘journey’ by providing store of items such as underwear The Daily Telegraph10 Apr 2025By Simon Johnson Scottish Political Editor TRANSGENDER criminals should be given taxpayer-funded wigs and underwear to help them on their “journey”, Scotland’s prisons watchdog has said. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS) said a “central repository” should be provided where “difficult to source items” can be requested for trans inmates. It recommended that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) considers setting up such a store at its headquarters to help support criminals across the country ‘Central repository for wigs, underwear etc where officers can request difficult to source items’ “on their transgender journey”. But Scottish Tories attacked the proposal for a trans “wardrobe” and said taxpayers would be “appalled that the needs of male-bodied criminals are being pandered to in this vein”.

Friday Total: 3

The Times [1]
FA resists calls to ban transgender players from women’s games Martyn Ziegler - Chief Sports Reporter English football chiefs have introduced new rules on transgender players in women’s matches that stop short of a blanket ban but allow the FA to intervene if it believes there are issues around safety or fairness of competition. The updated policy came into force on April 1 and continues the practice of allowing transgender women to play in amateur women’s competitions if they have had reduced testosterone levels for at least a year. Campaigners had wanted football to follow sports such as rugby union and hockey by restricting women’s matches to those who were born female, with an open category for all other players. Instead, about 20 transgender women registered to play amateur football in England can continue to do so if their testosterone levels are below 5nmol per litre for at least 12 months. However, a change to the regulations means the FA can step in if it has any concerns and ask its Transgender and Non-Binary Eligibility Committee to make a decision. The new FA rules state: “Where there is an issue about a player’s eligibility, efforts will always be made to resolve it through dialogue between the player, the county FA and the FA.” Players’ medical records of hormone therapy have to be verified at least annually, before the start of each season, “and more often at the FA’s discretion”, according to the rules. There are no transgender women playing in or even close to the elite level in England. It is understood that if this changes, the FA would seek advice from Fifa — however the policy of world football’s governing body is also around reduced testosterone levels, rather than a full ban. In September Sutton United women’s team postponed their fixture against Ebbsfleet United after the club were criticised for signing a transgender goalkeeper, Blair Hamilton. Sutton’s manager, Lucy Clark, was the first openly trans referee before her appointment by the club in January 2024. The new FA policy follows a lengthy review and has been drawn up with input from two KCs. The FA is understood to wish to promote inclusion as a priority but to be able to intervene when there are concerns. In November there was a protest against its policy outside Wembley in response to a 17-year-old being banned for two matches over remarks made to a transgender opponent in a grassroots match in which she repeatedly asked the opponent: “Are you a man?” Last month the FA’s chief executive, Mark Bullingham, said the governing body was “in the right place” with its transgender eligibility policy. “We do continue to look at areas that we might refine,” he added.
Telegraph [2]
Supreme Court to rule whether transgender women are women The Daily Telegraph11 Apr 2025By Simon Johnson Scottish Political Editor THE Supreme Court is to issue a landmark ruling next week over whether transgender people can be defined as women. For Women Scotland, the feminist campaign group, has brought the case, arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female. The SNP Government has argued the definition should include trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The Scottish Government’s lawyers argued during a two-day hearing last November that legal protections for those who were pregnant could not apply to a pregnant transgender man despite them being born female. However, FWS said they should be protected on the grounds of biological sex, even if they identified as a man. If this was not so, they argued that “the man would potentially be entitled to bring a claim of direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment”. The case centres on whether SNP Government guidance about the meaning of the word “woman” in the Equality Act is lawful. Five judges, led by Lord Reed, will hand down their ruling next week. Lawyers are expected to cite the judgment in future cases to argue whether trans women can access women’s refuges, prisons, changing rooms and other single-sex spaces. FWS initially went to court to challenge SNP ministers over a law designed to increase the number of women on public boards. This stated that anyone “living as a woman” would be eligible. ‘It will be easier to pretend a ... natal male belongs in women’s changing rooms if the public can’t see’ The Court of Session in Edinburgh found the Scottish Government had gone beyond its powers by legislating that trans women should count as women. This forced the publication of new statutory guidelines which stated that trans women should be counted as female, so long as they held a GRC. FWS began a legal challenge, arguing that the Scottish Government had overstepped its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of female. But Judge Lady Haldane ruled the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex” in December 2022. An appeal was rejected by the Inner House of the Court of Session, prompting FWS to go to the Supreme Court. The ruling will be issued the day after a private hearing in an employment tribunal about a trans doctor being allowed to use a female changing room. The Telegraph disclosed yesterday that NHS Fife has asked the judge on the case, brought by nurse Sandie Peggie, to remove public access to an online livestream of tribunal proceedings. Responding to NHS Fife calling for the public to be banned from watching online, JK Rowling tweeted: “Presumably because it will be easier to pretend a large, trans-identified natal male belongs in women’s changing rooms if the public can’t see what he looks like.” Judge Sandy Kemp will issue rulings on both NHS Fife’s applications at a hearing behind closed doors next week, ahead of the tribunal restarting in July. A spokesman for HM Courts and Tribunals Service said: “Decisions on how cases are conducted are made by the independent judiciary.” Article Name:Supreme Court to rule whether transgender women are women Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Simon Johnson Scottish Political Editor Start Page:10 End Page:10
Crowdfund boost in trans legal fight The Daily Telegraph11 Apr 2025By Ben Rumsby Donations doubled in a day for the legal defence of a pool federation being sued by a banned transgender player. The amount pledged to the crowdfunding page of the English Blackball Pool Federation soared from around £6,600 to more than £13,500 yesterday. The ruling body had been seeking support amid fears the costs involved in the case would be beyond its means. Harriet Haynes is suing it for discrimination after it banned players born male from competing in women’s events. She claims it led her to suffer a “loss of opportunity” and “injured feelings”. As the case entered its fourth day, Canterbury County Court was due to hear evidence from Blair Hamilton, a transgender goalkeeper, after Haynes called her as an expert witness. Hamilton has become a lightning rod in the furore over the Football Association’s refusal to ban trans women. In August, Sutton United, who appointed Lucy Clark as the first trans manager in the top five tiers of the English female game, provoked controversy by signing Hamilton for their women’s team. Article Name:Crowdfund boost in trans legal fight Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Ben Rumsby Start Page:9 End Page:9

Saturday Total: 1

Telegraph [1]
Don’t use rapists’ preferred pronouns, judges told The Daily Telegraph - Saturday12 Apr 2025By Charles Hymas HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR JUDGES have been warned against using preferred pronouns for transgender offenders who commit violent or sex crimes. Inappropriate use of preferred pronouns can raise the risk of appearing “biased” or having “predetermined” the outcome, the judicial office warned in an alert to all judges and magistrates. It follows what the judicial office described as the “increasingly common” number of cases of violent or sexual offences where recognising a trans offender’s biological sex affects the outcome of the case. Campaigners have expressed concern that transgender defendants who are biologically male and have committed sex attacks against women are being referred to as “she” in court. Last September, Lexi Secker, a trans rapist who was sentenced to more than six years in a male prison, was referred to as “she” by police, a judge and barristers throughout a trial in Swindon. Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns for the charity Sex Matters, said at the time: “This person is a man. Why don’t the police say so? “Do they think they have to pretend, because he now says he’s a woman, even though he has committed the ultimate male crime of rape? It is very concerning to see the police pandering to the feelings of trans-identifying males.” The alert to judges and magistrates said that “typically” it should be unproblematic to refer to those who appear in court however they wish. However, it pointed to updated guidance in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, an official guide to how individuals should be treated in court. It said: “It may not be appropriate, or may even be extremely inappropriate, for the judge to use a defendant’s preferred pronouns, for example, in cases of violent or sex crimes by a transgender perpetrator. ” Article Name:Don’t use rapists’ preferred pronouns, judges told Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Author:By Charles Hymas HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR Start Page:11 End Page:11

Sunday Total: 5

Mail on Sunday [1]
If we wandered around the male consultants’ changing room in just our underwear claiming to be men and they felt threatened... well, we all know who’d win THAT battle As court showdown looms, the nurses branded bigots simply for challenging the trans orthodoxy that has every public insitution in its grip, on why they refuse to cave in The Mail on Sunday13 Apr 2025By JENNY JOHNSTON STANDING STRONG: Tracey Hooper, Annice Grundy, Lisa Lockey and Bethany Hutchison. Left: A MoS report on their story FOUR members of the most famous ‘bunch of nurses’ in Britain are wondering how things might have panned out if they hadn’t been, as one of them puts it, ‘just a bunch of female nurses’. Lisa Lockey, 52, who has spent 35 years working for the NHS, poses an alternative scenario to illustrate her theory. ‘Say one of us did this – just changed our name, and without any other evidence that we were transitioning, walked into the male changing room, believing we had every right to be in there, in our bra and knickers, as the men got undressed. How would that have been received? ‘You can joke about it and say, “Oh the men would love that”, but in all seriousness, I don’t think they would like it at all. ‘I also think that if the male surgeons, anaesthetists and consultants in that male changing room had something to say about the situation, it would be dealt with very differently from the off. ‘It’s the difference between men and women, isn’t it? Men are listened to way more than women are, unfortunately.’ We will never know how that hypothetical situation would have turned out, but we do know what happened when 26 nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital – Lisa included – spoke up after they found themselves in a similar, albeit reverse, situation. Back in 2023, to their abject horror, they discovered that they were expected to undress alongside a biological male colleague who went by the name of Rose and identified as a woman – even while striding around in boxer shorts, male genitalia very much intact and in evidence. After questioning whether this could possibly be right, and saying they felt threatened and intimidated by the presence of a male in the female changing room – one, it is important to note, who was not taking hormones, and had been open about the fact that ‘she’ was sexually active and trying for a baby with ‘her’ female partner – the nurses were told by their HR department that they were the ones with the problem. They needed to ‘broaden their mindset’, they were told. To be more ‘inclusive’. They also needed to be ‘re-educated’. Their anger is still palpable today. ‘We were treated like naughty schoolgirls,’ says Tracey Hooper, 46, who has clocked up more than 20 years as a nurse and thought she was unshockable. ‘When we raised genuine concerns, the message was, “Shut up and go away.”’ In a move that may well be recorded in the history books, the Darlington Nurses – now heroines to many – refused to be silenced. Eight of them not only went public with their concerns, even in the face of threats of disciplinary action and warnings that they could lose their jobs, but effectively went to war against their own bosses. They launched an extraordinary legal action against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, accusing it of sexual harassment and discrimination, claiming that the trans-inclusive agenda was effectively trampling over women’s hard-fought rights. On April 2, five of them: Lisa, Rose conjures up images of a delicate person – this is a big, burly bloke Tracey, together with colleagues Bethany Hutchison, Annice Grundy and Joanne Bradbury, attended court for the preliminary hearing of this landmark case – one that could have ramifications for every public sector organisation in Britain. Although the case had been scheduled to start in June, the Trust asked for more time to conclude its internal investigation and will now be heard in October. But already the nurses have notched up a victory: they objected to an application for the transgender colleague concerned – Rose Henderson – to be granted anonymity during the proceedings, and won. The judge ruled that allowing Rose’s identity to be concealed would be against the principle of open justice. Bethany, 37, the youngest of the nurses but the one who led the revolt, explains why they feel it was important for Rose to be identified. ‘I like to quote my friend Sandie Peggie on this [a Scottish nurse who has taken similar legal action north of the border]. She says privacy is for changing rooms, not courtrooms. ‘This case isn’t about Rose – our issues are with the Trust, not Rose personally. ‘But at the same time I think it’s important that the public sees what we are dealing with here. ‘Most people don’t have any idea, because the name Rose conjures up images of a delicate, fragile sort of person. This is not a delicate sort of person – this is a big, burly bloke.’ Having already faced accusations that they are bigoted transphobic bullies – astonishingly, including from their former union representative – the women want every twist and turn of this debacle to be laid bare in a courtroom. Lisa says: ‘I think the public will be astonished at what women are being asked to accept. It’s completely crazy. ‘This isn’t a group of mouthy women who are twisting against a poor transgender person who is just trying to quietly live their life. It is not. It’s about so much more. ‘It baffles me that people keep saying this is a trans issue. What we are dealing with is a man who is obviously attracted to women being in the female changing room, which is supposed to be a safe space.’ It is striking that every single time these women refer to Rose they use the he/him pronouns. They all see a clear difference between the transgender patients they’ve treated using preferred pronouns – and there have been a few – and Rose. ‘It’s about respect,’ says Lisa. ‘But there is no mutual respect with Rose. He’s not bothered. There is no consideration there. It’s like rocking up to a party you haven’t been invited to.’ It feels terribly wrong, too, that such an almighty fight is being left to ordinary nurses. Some of the most powerful people in the land – up to and including Health Secretary Wes Streeting – have paid lip service to them, yet still it has come down to these women putting their careers on the line. While they may have the backing of high-profile supporters such as J.K.Rowling (‘millions of women stand with the Darlington nurses,’ she has said), they do not have her financial cushion. As we sort the logistics for this interview, the madness of what they feel they have to do – ‘for our daughters, and for everyone’s daughters,’ says Annice, 55 – becomes apparent. These warrior women, as they have been dubbed, are all working mothers with varying shift patterns and giddying to-do lists. They have children to be picked up from nursery, grandchildren to mind. Accommodating others is their default setting, even off duty. Annice, who works full time, and has ‘a son, a daughter, a stepdaughter, five grandchildren and a mum who was widowed three years ago’, apologises for having to tweak the timings. She has to run an elderly neighbour to a hospital appointment. It is also obvious that these are the sort of women for whom making others feel comfortable is hardwired. There is a moment where I ask Lisa how many children she has – is it two or three? ‘Now I don’t want you to feel mortified when I tell you...’ she begins, before explaining she has two living sons, but lost her daughter to cancer when she was four years old. And yet these are the women who will walk into a courtroom, knowing they are going to be called uncaring bigots with nothing better to do than cause trouble. Of course they are terrified, but point out they are acting for so many others who can’t put their heads above the parapet – including the international nurses who dare not speak out for fear of losing their visas and right to work. Even so, they are acutely aware of how much is at risk. ‘Of course it’s a worry,’ says Bethany. ‘It’s my livelihood, my career and I love my job.’ You do wonder if the HR managers at County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust ever called up Bethany’s file before they told her she needed re-educating. This is a woman with THREE degrees, including – yes, really – a master’s in disaster management. Women who are hardwired to make others feel comfortable She downplays the academia, joking about her convoluted path to the NHS wards: she studied environmental development at university, then a stint working on a malaria project in West Africa as part of her dissertation sparked a passion for nursing. ‘The plan was to kind of save the world, maybe work for Medecins Sans Frontieres, but that stopped when I married and had children,’ she laughs. The irony, though... the woman who could have had a career on the front line has indeed found herself on a battlefield, leading her own little army. She baulks at that suggestion, however. ‘I don’t see myself as any sort of warrior woman,’ she says. None of them do. Annice points out that before she was a nurse she used to be a store manager for Laura Ashley – hardly a training ground for ‘this sort of thing’. The tribunal expects to hear from 30 witnesses, these women – and Rose – included. Doubtless there will be debate about who said what and when, but what’s striking about the women’s accounts today is the sense that full conflict could have been avoided if they’d been listened to. It isn’t known exactly when Rose began to identify as a woman, but they had been vaguely aware of a transgender nurse working at the hospital for several years, but no one thought much of it. Lisa recalls her first encounter with Rose, in the summer of 2023. ‘I walked in to get changed one day and heard a male voice. At first, I thought I’d come in the wrong door, but then I remembered the transgender person.’ When she saw Rose, however, she was shocked. ‘I expected someone in women’s clothes, but although he has long hair he just wears jeans and a T-shirt. ‘I can’t stress this enough – he looks and dresses like a man.’ She was embarrassed to strip off in front of ‘this obvious man’, so she didn’t. ‘I rummaged about in my bag and pretended to be busy until he left.’ Her second encounter with Rose came some weeks later, after a busy shift. ‘It was as busy as I’d ever seen it, some people coming off shift, some going on. There were bodies – boobs and bums, basically – everywhere. Then I saw Rose just walking about chatting to everyone. ‘I’m not the sort who strips off anyway, and I remember thinking, “Well, I’m not getting undressed in front of you,” so gathered my things up and went to There were boobs and bums everywhere – and ‘Rose’ just walking about the toilet cubicle. I was in there for quite a while, but when I came out Rose was still there, walking about. I remember thinking, “How long does it take you to get changed?”’ Although she insists there was no confrontation, ‘I did detect a look... a sort of, “I dare you to say something”. But I just smiled and left.’ Lisa stresses that she went home that day thinking she was the problem and that she needed to be ‘more accepting’. Yet in their break-room, the nurses started nervously talking about how Rose’s presence was making them feel uncomfortable. Nor could the women ignore the fact that Rose had been open with colleagues about not taking female hormones through a desire to try for a baby. Mind-blowing. A major flag came when some of the international nurses ‘whose religion or culture forbids them from undressing in front of men who aren’t their husbands’ began to share their distress. Some began to wear to wear leggings and T-shirts under their clothes, to avoid ever being undressed when they changed into their uniforms. Bethany was the one who first spoke to superiors. She says: ‘I had a word with the sister on the ward, and she spoke to senior management, who said there was nothing they could do because of the Trust’s inclusiveness policy.’ At the same time, however, Bethany says she was taken aside by a clearly upset colleague. ‘She approached me cautiously, bless her. She said she was glad I’d raised it because she’d been abused as a child, by a man, and had been having panic attacks in the changing room because she had to get dressed with a man in there. ‘That was it for me. I thought, “This is wrong.”’ By now Bethany had sought legal advice, and was furiously reading up on the law around safeguarding. Word had swept through the hospital that the nurses were not accepting the status quo. Lisa recalls the relief. ‘I remember thinking, “Oh, it’s not just me then. Good.” That was when the ball started rolling, slowly.’ That was in August 2023, although the first formal complaint was made in April 2024, when the women felt they were out of other options. The women are being supported by the Christian Legal Centre. Chief Executive Andrea Williams says that accountability and justice in this case was ‘long overdue’, adding: ‘It is completely unacceptable that ideological radicals within NHS management have turned what should be a safe and supportive workplace into a cultural battleground.’ A spokesman for County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘[We are] fully committed to supporting all members of our staff and ensuring a safe, respectful and inclusive working environment. We recognise legal proceedings are under way and we are engaging with the process in full accordance with employment law and the tribunal’s instructions. As this case is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment in detail.’ This case will pivot on how the Trust reacted to the women’s concerns, and questions will surely be asked about why this matter has dragged on for so long. Bethany insists that for the best part of a year they were ‘stonewalled, dismissed, made to feel that we just didn’t matter’. She adds: ‘All that was coming back was “inclusivity”. A particular low was when one HR manager said she wouldn’t have a problem undressing in front of a man, “because she was ex-Forces.”’ All accuse the Trust of heavyhandedness. There was a warning that speaking publicly about the case ‘would not be helpful’. Some developments were unnecessarily confrontational. The nurses turned up for work one day, to find a notice taped on the changing room door indicating it was now ‘inclusive’. They saw it as a slap-in-the-face confirmation that Rose’s rights trumped theirs. A request that separate changing facilities be made available to Rose was rejected. Instead the nurses were offered a small locker room – little more than a cupboard with one hook on the back of the door – to change in. Rose has not tried to use this room but ‘that’s not the point,’ argues Bethany. ‘It’s the policy that’s wrong. It’s not about individual rooms.’ Lisa steps in: ‘It probably doesn’t sound like it, but none of us wish Rose ill,’ she says. ‘The fault here lies with the Trust, which has allowed this situation to happen. The common sense thing would have been to do what we asked for in the first place – create a third changing space for transgender people.’ She chats for a minute about the layout of the hospital, suggesting where this could be. I ask about the size of the designated male changing room. ‘I’ve no idea,’ she says, surprised. ‘I’ve never been in it.’ Why would she? Article Name:If we wandered around the male consultants’ changing room in just our underwear claiming to be men and they felt threatened... well, we all know who’d win THAT battle Publication:The Mail on Sunday Author:By JENNY JOHNSTON Start Page:12 End Page:12
Sunday Telegraph [4]
Women’s spaces protected in equality revamp The Sunday Telegraph13 Apr 2025By Ethan Croft WOMEN-ONLY spaces will be protected in an overhaul of equality laws under official plans being considered by the Government. Trans people will be routinely asked to present gender recognition certificates and organisations compelled to define the difference between sex and gender under proposed changes to the equality code. Britain’s human rights watchdog last week submitted a 310-page revised version of its Statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations to the Government. The guidance, which was last amended in 2010, is considered “out of date” by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC is pushing for a radical overhaul following fears existing guidelines on sex and gender were being loosely interpreted by hundreds of public bodies, allowing self-identifying trans people into single-sex spaces. The code is being scrutinised by ministers and officials, including government lawyers, and could be presented to Parliament before the summer recess. The Code will also heavily base its protections of philosophical belief on the outcome of the Maya Forstater case, according to those familiar with the plans. In 2021 an employment tribunal brought by Ms Forstater ruled that the belief that trans women are not real women is a belief that “must be protected”. The tax expert had been dismissed from her job after expressing gender critical views on Twitter. The tribunal ruled that her belief was protected under the Equality Act, setting a new legal precedent. It also comes after the case of the Darlington Memorial Hospital nurses, who are currently suing their employer on grounds of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. Darlington NHS Foundation Trust allowed a man who identified as a woman but did not have a gender recognition certificate to use the hospital’s female changing room. The case will be heard in October. If implemented in full it is expected to put the Government on a collision course with activist groups such as Stonewall, which has fought for trans people to be allowed into single-sex spaces. The new book-length code will protect biological sex over gender identity as far as is possible under current law. The aim of the new guidance is to update equalities guidance in line with more than a decade’s worth of legal cases, court rulings, tribunal outcomes and new legislation. A government source familiar with the plans told this newspaper “it will transform the weather” on sex and gender. Its provisions include greater protections for single-sex spaces, including compelling all service providers and public facing organisations to clarify the difference between sex and gender. It also permits organisations to routinely ask for a gender recognition certificate from trans individuals seeking access to single sex spaces. The revision follows concerns at the EHRC and in government that there was widespread non-compliance with the spirit of the Equality Act, as gender identity has become a creeping stand-in for biological sex. Last month the independent Sullivan Review claimed that criminals are now free to pick their gender because the Government is refusing to force police to record biological sex. It also warned trans men and trans women were at risk of missing vital cervical and prostate cancer exams owing to confusion over their biological sex on official records. The independent review recommended police forces and the NHS should collect data on sex rather than just a person’s self-declared gender identity. In December the equalities watchdog asked to see the transgender policies of hundreds of public bodies after fears that the Equality Act was not being appropriately followed. The Act allows public bodies to restrict access to single-sex spaces to those born in that sex. However, a number of organisations have chosen to loosely interpret the law to include trans-identified people. Last year the current chair of the EHRC Baroness Falkner said she had identified some 400 instances in which the Equality Act had been misinterpreted in recent years. The tightened code is expected to make Equality Act obligations around biological sex much more explicit and strict. Following the revision of the Code for service providers, a further update to the sister Code for Employers is also understood to be in the works. A Government spokesman said: “Ministers will consider the proposals in due course.” Article Name:Women’s spaces protected in equality revamp Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Ethan Croft Start Page:1 End Page:1
Avoid calling children ‘boys and girls’ to be gender-inclusive The Sunday Telegraph13 Apr 2025By Tim Sigsworth THE phrase “boys and girls” should be avoided because it is not inclusive to transgender children, Scotland’s care watchdog has said. In an inclusion guide published last week, the Care Inspectorate said staff working at Scottish children’s homes should always use “gender-inclusive language”. It said the phrase “come on boys and girls” was not “good LGBT practice” and should be avoided in favour of “come on everybody”. The guidance, which is adorned with the colours of the trans-inclusive Progress Pride flag, was issued to “enhance the inclusion” of transgender and non-binary children in care. It recommends an approach to gender dysphoria that critics said amounted to affirmation. The guide says: “Don’t dismiss what they tell you, deny their identity or tell them they are ‘confused’ or ‘it’s just a phase’. “Remember young people are still exploring their identity. They may identify differently in future, or there may be other underlying reasons for their sense of gender dysphoria. “Try to create an environment that feels safe to explore identity, and enables young people to change their mind in future if they wish to do so.” It recommends carers always “use young people’s pronouns and preferred names” and “provide opportunities for young people to say their pronouns, for example by staff introducing themselves with their own pronouns”. Lord Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, accused the Care Inspectorate of “telling carers to affirm the delusions of children”. He said: “If I was a gender-confused adolescent in care, I’d want someone to give me some sensible, practical advice, the kind of advice a loving parent would give – i.e.: ‘Don’t embark on an irreversible medical pathway until you’ve really had a chance to think this through’. “Instead, the Scottish care watchdog is telling carers to affirm the delusions of the children it’s supposed to be looking after – delusions that could lead them to make life-changing decisions that they’ll come to regret.” Elsewhere, the guide lists a glossary of definitions taken directly from the Stonewall charity, which has been criticised for supporting the prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s. The list includes the contested term “gender assigned at birth”, which denies sex is biological or innate and instead claims it is merely assigned based on a newborn baby’s physical appearance. The Care Inspectorate has previously been criticised for saying girls in care should be allowed to share a bedroom with boys who think they are transgender. The guidance, published in the wake of last year’s Cass review, says transgender children “should not be made to use the toilet or bedroom of their sex assigned at birth”. Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, called the Care Inspectorate’s guidance “a terrifying failure of the state’s duty to protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable young people”. A spokesman for the Care Inspectorate said: “We expect all services to develop inclusive culture and practice which creates a safe space and takes appropriate account of the wishes, rights and needs of all young people.” ‘It is telling carers to affirm the delusions of the children it’s supposed to be looking after’ ‘A terrifying failure of the state to protect some of its most vulnerable young people’ Article Name:Avoid calling children ‘boys and girls’ to be gender-inclusive Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Tim Sigsworth Start Page:5 End Page:5
We are only now discovering how much damage has been done in the name of gender ideology. Last month, a review led by Professor Alice Sullivan revealed that official records, ranging from those held by the NHS to the criminal justice system, have been “corrupted” for years, and on a large scale, by the usurpation of biological sex by self-declared gender. Statistics on sex offences are being distorted by male offenders identifying as female. Defendants have been allowed to change their identities before trial, potentially affecting the verdict or sentence. Now, at last, the courts have been given notice to deny defendants this wish automatically. Judges and magistrates are being advised not to accept unquestioningly preferred pronouns and self-ID, especially in regard to those accused of sex offences. There has been no requirement for defendants to present a Gender Recognition Certificate. Until now all they have needed to do is declare their desire to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex. It is long overdue for the courts to insist on due process before a fact as fundamental as a person’s legal identity can be changed. The legal system retains, however, a systematic bias in favour of self-ID. For example, the Crown Prosecution Service still instructs prosecutors “to address trans victims, witnesses and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name”. It may be a while before courts revert to using objective rather than subjective criteria – a practice they should never have abandoned. Fortunately there are courageous individuals in the public arena who are standing up against the tyranny of identity politics. Perhaps surprisingly, some of these intrepid spirits work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Last week, the commission submitted a 310-page revision of its Statutory Code of Practice. If fully implemented, this code would protect the sex-based rights of women and represent a welcome victory for campaigners such as Maya Forstater. Such a move would not infringe the rights of transgender people, because gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic. It would, however, make it easier for singlesex spaces to be reserved for women only. By ensuring that women, defined by biological sex, are also protected, this reform would prevent men from using self-ID to gain access to women. The new court guidelines and the proposal by the Equality Commission are both important steps towards a more rational approach to sex and gender. Public opinion has never supported the tiny minority of gender extremists who have sought not only to cast doubt on the facts of life, but also to criminalise common sense. Yet this arena of the culture wars is still fiercely contested. Why has the pushback taken so long? And when will the Prime Minister get off the fence? Ovine firefighters Does Angela Rayner have a beef about lamb? The Deputy Prime Minister has joined the Labour Government’s mission to make farmers graze fewer sheep. Having taken over responsibility for wildfires, she has joined Defra in its obsession with reducing livestock emissions to meet Ed Miliband’s net zero targets. Sheep numbers have been artificially reduced, causing dry vegetation to accumulate and turning vast tracts of countryside into a tinderbox. Ms Rayner should listen to those who really understand our rural ecology: hill farmers (such as James Rebanks, author of English Pastoral) and the Moorland Association. The latter has appealed to her to halt the campaign against sheep, which is destroying ancient farming practices and making wildfires on the scale of Los Angeles more likely. Seven years ago, wildfires in the Manchester region caused pollution that afflicted millions. Now fire chiefs have warned that conflagrations due to lack of grazing and land management are increasing. This is an environmental and human disaster waiting to happen. The official prejudice against sheep is unwarranted. It seems to be inspired by zealots like George Monbiot, who claim that overgrazing by “the white plague” has ruined our uplands – ignoring the evidence that sheep-farming has been an integral part of English agriculture for centuries. No less arbitrary is the talk of carbon emissions. Why single out sheep, merely because they are visible, rather than animals kept out of sight on intensive megafarms? On these islands we are particularly good at rearing sheep. Last year, the Welsh flock stood at 8.4 million, or a little over 2.6 sheep per person. Even these prodigious numbers are down from their peak – there were more than 12 million in the 1990s. There remain around 70 per cent more sheep in Wales than the entire United States, a country over 470 times larger. Ovines do very little harm and a great deal of good. Elsewhere, sheep grazing is not seen as a cause of climate change, but a prophylactic against its effects. Ms Rayner should take wildfires seriously, rein in Defra and get behind this British success story. How about lamb for lunch, Deputy Prime Minister?

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: NHS admit denying trans kids treatment]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-nhs-admit-denyinghttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-nhs-admit-denyingSun, 06 Apr 2025 10:40:36 GMTThe Trans Agenda

[6 April 2025]

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

Donate to The Trans Agenda via Paypal

Having failed to include an introduction in most editions of this newsletter’s short life, I’ve promised myself I’ll try to remember going forward. That said, this week my brain feels like it’s been turned to mush, likely Covid, despite negative tests. The absence of taste and smell is the giveaway.

It’s been another week of the same shite dressed as breaking news. We’re living in Groundhog Day on steroids, courtesy of the Nazi at the gym. A few new grifters found their way into the headlines, Helen Joyce continues to ensure that there will be no way back for her when this madness finally ends, and it will end, while the British media remain steadfast in ignoring the escalating horrors being inflicted on trans people under their ‘feminist hero’, Donald Trump. To their credit, they’re also ignoring his attacks on cisgender women, so at least the consistency is admirable, if not much else.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

NHS admits denying gender-affirming healthcare to trans children [Sunday Times]

  • The NHS has not prescribed a single new course of hormones or puberty blockers to trans children since closing the Tavistock clinic a year ago, cutting off medical care for young people. Despite over 250 children being seen in new regional services, none have been offered gender-affirming hormone treatment. Thousands remain on waiting lists. NHS England confirmed that while prescriptions are technically still possible, no case has yet been deemed ‘appropriate’ by a national panel, reflecting the ideological policy shift away from supporting trans youth through medical care.

Universities retreat from trans inclusion policies after free speech fine

  • According to The Times [Saturday] UK universities are reviewing or removing trans inclusion policies after the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 by the Office for Students for policies that defend trans people. The infiltrated regulator claimed Sussex’s policy risked deterring lawful gender-critical views, i.e. bigotry. Several institutions, including Leeds, Essex, and Exeter, are now revising documents amid sector-wide anxiety and government-encouraged discrimination.

Darlington nurses case adjourned

  • The case of the Darlington nurses, who are seemingly harassing a trans nurse for existing, and who are supported by Wes Streeting, has been adjourned until 20 October to allow the NHS to 'carry out an internal investigation'. The hearing will then take four weeks with around 30 witnesses. The case has already generated a lot of media coverage, with the Mail naming the trans nurse in full this week. Between now and October, I fully expect the nurse’s life to be destroyed by the press in the name of ‘protecting women’.

Helen Joyce calls for surgeons to be jailed for life

  • Helen Joyce, the prominent but ignorant Sex Matters anti-trans activist, told the Oxford Literary Festival that doctors who perform gender-affirming surgeries on teenagers should be jailed for life. Joyce, who framed trans identity as a “social contagion” and called UK leaders “cowards,” was met with student protest. See PAPER REVIEW for more. She has previously called trans people a ‘huge problem for a sane world’ and said she would like that to be her epitaph.

Labour ignore trans people on Trans Day of Visibility

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

AROUND THE WORLD

Canada: British Columbia nurse found guilty of unprofessional conduct over anti-trans comments [CBC]

  • A disciplinary panel has ruled that Amy Hamm, a BC nurse, committed unprofessional conduct by making anti-transgender statements while publicly identifying as a nurse. The panel said her comments, made across various platforms, were discriminatory, undermined trust in the nursing profession, and may deter trans people from seeking care. Hamm is free to appeal the decision but faces potential penalties.

Spain: Please watch this

Norway: Trans people having their medical records snooped on

USA: Montana’s adult trans bathroom ban blocked by judge for lacking evidence [Erin Reed]

  • A Montana judge has temporarily blocked the state’s adult transgender bathroom ban, ruling it was driven by anti-trans animus and lacked evidence it protects women’s safety. The law, signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, barred transgender and intersex people from using the public bathrooms they wished to use. The judge found it unconstitutional, discriminatory, and based on unscientific definitions of sex.

USA: Trans woman arrested for using women’s restroom says she’s ‘willing to suffer for dignity’ [Pink News]

  • Marcy Rheintgen, a 20-year-old trans woman from Illinois, was arrested for trespassing after peacefully protesting Florida’s anti-trans bathroom law by using a women’s restroom at the state Capitol. Charged under the 2023 Facility Requirements Based on Sex Act, Rheintgen faces a possible jail sentence and said she’s “willing to suffer for the trans community” and for “dignity, rights, and humanity.”

USA: Trans care is child abuse

USA: Trump administration halts trans health research to push ‘regret’ narrative [Nature]

  • The Trump White House has directed the NIH to focus on “regret” after transition while cancelling nearly all existing transgender health studies. This politically driven move sidelines critical, evidence-based research in favour of ideologically skewed projects. It creates a dangerous knowledge vacuum, despite data showing that fewer than 1% of trans people regret gender-affirming surgery. A large percentage of that 1% also claim their ‘regret’ comes from the social cost inflicted upon them for transitioning.

Transgender how do you know? by H Lee Hurley

SPORT

Fencer disqualified for refusing to compete against trans opponent [Pink News]

  • Stephanie Turner was disqualified from a Maryland fencing tournament after refusing to compete against Redmond Sullivan, insultingly taking a knee instead. Turner admitted she intended to protest USA Fencing’s inclusive policy, which allows trans women to compete after one year of testosterone suppression. USA Fencing defended its stance, stating it aims to expand access and uphold equal rules for all athletes. It remains to be seen how long they will maintain that stance once Donald Trump and the other grifters get involved, which they inevitably will.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Labour MP arrested for rape and child abuse

  • Labour MP Dan Norris, also Mayor of the West of England, has been arrested on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction, and misconduct in public office. Police raided his home on Friday. Norris has been suspended by the Labour Party and stepped down as chair of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Marine Le Pen found guilty of embezzlement, political career over

  • A French court has found Marine Le Pen guilty of embezzling over €3 million in EU funds to pay members of her National Rally party. The conviction includes a ban from holding public office, ending her chances in the 2027 presidential race. The right-wing papers in the UK have spent the days since the verdict telling us all why it is a bad thing she has faced consequences for her actions.

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here. The House of Commons goes into recess after the end of business on 8 April until 22 April. The House of Lords is already in recess.

Monday 7 April

  • Report: WHO on maternal mortality

Tuesday 8 April

  • Wes Streeting to appear at a committee session on NHS reorganisation

  • Louisiana deportation hearing for Mahmoud Khalil

Wednesday 9 April

  • King Charles to address joint session of Italian parliament

Thursday 10 April

  • Report: NHS key services data, including for A&E and waiting times

Friday 11 April

  • Monthly UK GDP estimate

  • 80 years ago: Buchenwald liberated

SHORTS

  • As of 1 April, victims can attend the parole hearings of their perpetrators as part of the Government's Plan for Change. [UK Government]

  • Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 was confirmed in commercial poultry at a fifth premises near Thirsk, Thirsk & Malton, North Yorkshire. [UK Government]

  • Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted paedophile, referred to Lord Mandelson as “family”, a court in London was told. [Times]

THE PAPERS

This week, the papers were somewhat quieter than they were last week (20 v 29) but they are still keeping up the pace.

The Telegraph leads the way as usual with nine, the Mail is next with six, while the Times had four and the Guardian one.

There was no overarching theme this week, with attacks spanning a range of subjects, all featuring the same people crying.

Only one day (Friday) had no articles.

Whose bylines were on all these articles? Amanda Platell, Ben Butcher, Ben Spencer, Celia Walden, Chris Pollard, David Leask, David Sanderson, Dominic Penna, Glen Owen, Helen Carroll, Ian Gallagher, Jenni Murray, Keiran Southern, Michael Deacon, Natasha Leake, Nicola Woolcock, Sally Weale, Sam Merrriman, Telegraph reporters (3), Tim Sigworth (2).

Quoted, mentioned or featured this week: Adult Human Female (4), Andrea Williams, Bethany Hutchison, Carolyn Brown, Christian Legal Centre (2), Darlington nurses (2), Dave Boardman, Deirdre O'Neill (4), Helen Joyce (3), Jennifer Melle, JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock (2), Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, Matt Davis, Michael Wayne (4), Ofs, Sex Matters (2), Sharron Davies, Toby Young (2), Wes Streeting, Women's Rights Network.

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 31 March - Sunday 62 March

Monday Total: 1

Telegraph [1]
Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic The Daily Telegraph31 Mar 2025By Tim Sigsworth. Ben Butcher and Matt Davis A TODDLER was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal. Department for Education data show the child, who is aged either three or four, was suspended from a state school in the 2022-23 academic year for “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”. The school and further details of the case were not disclosed. But statistics show that 94 pupils at state primary schools were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia and homophobia in 2022-23. These included 10 pupils from Year 1 and three from Year 2, where the maximum age is seven. One of these included a child of nursery age, the data show. The Telegraph previously revealed that children as young as five were being kicked out of schools for attacking teachers or pupils amid an alarming rise in ill-discipline in Britain’s schools. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, said: “Every once in a while, the extremes of gender ideology throw up a story that seems too crazy to believe, and a toddler being suspended from nursery for so-called ‘transphobia’ or homophobia is one such example. “Worse still, this is not an isolated case. Apparently, 13 four- and five-yearolds were suspended or permanently excluded from school for the same reason. “Teachers and school leaders involved in this insanity should be ashamed of themselves for projecting adult concepts and beliefs on to such young children. It’s unforgivable for children’s vital early education to be so traumatically disrupted by school leaders who prioritise activists’ demands over their charges’ wellbeing.” Across all state primary schools, the number of pupils suspended or expelled for homophobic or transphobic behaviour increased from 164 in 2021-22 to 178 in 2022-23. The largest number of suspensions and exclusions for this reason in 202223 was in Essex (16), followed by Birmingham (15), Bradford (11) and Norfolk (eight). The figures have only been collected since the 2020-21 academic year, and students can be excluded for multiple reasons. Lord Young, the director of the Free Speech Union, said: “It beggar’s belief that schools are suspending children as young as five for breaching their ‘transphobia’ policy. “I would have thought that if your ideology is so rigid it justifies you punishing toddlers for not complying with it, that’s a powerful argument for discarding it in favour of something less dogmatic.” A DFE spokesman said: “All pupils and staff should feel safe and protected at school and should never face violence or abuse. The Education Secretary has been clear that she expects school leaders to enforce good behaviour and we are committed to a comprehensive programme of behaviour support for schools. “Our Plan for Change sets out our relentless focus on making sure every child gets the best life chances.” Article Name:Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Tim Sigsworth. Ben Butcher and Matt Davis Start Page:1 End Page:1

Tuesday Total: 6

The Guardian [1]
Academics claim union discriminated against their views on gender The Guardian1 Apr 2025Sally Weale Education correspondent Two academics have taken their union to a tribunal, accusing it of discrimination and harassment after it campaigned to stop the screening of a documentary they made. Deirdre O’Neill, a senior lecturer in film studies at the University of Hertfordshire, and Michael Wayne, a professor of media and film studies at Brunel University, describe Adult Human Female as the first UK documentary to look at the “clash between women’s rights and gender ideology/ trans rights”. According to documents before the tribunal, when a screening was arranged at the University of Edinburgh in 2022, the local branch of the University and College Union (UCU) wrote to the institution urging it to cancel, calling the film an “attack on trans peoples’ identities”, as well as labelling it “transphobic” on Twitter. Protesters prevented the screening on two occasions – in December 2022 and April 2023 – by blocking the entrance to the venue. The film and reactions to it are part of a wider debate about gender politics and free speech in UK universities. Last week, the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for free speech breaches after a three-anda-half-year investigation into the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, who was the target of protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights. Trans rights groups regard Adult Human Female as inflammatory, transphobic and inaccurate. Documents before the tribunal state the film “argues against” the view that trans women should be treated as women in all legal and social contexts and “describes the detrimental treatment of women who have dissented from” that viewpoint. O’Neill and Wayne, who describe themselves as “gender critical”, believe sex is a matter of biology, that it is impossible for a human to change sex, and that sex is important in a range of different political and social contexts. In their submissions to the tribunal, they say that they do not subscribe to gender identity theory, “namely the belief that people are born with an internal sense of gender which may or may not correspond to their biological sex”. They claim these are protected beliefs and that UCU has discriminated against them contrary to section 57(2) of the Equality Act 2010. They also claim that the union’s conduct amounted to harassment, which “had the purpose and/or effect of violating their dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them”. The union denies it has discriminated against O’Neill and Wayne. Documents it supplied to the tribunal said UCU’s conduct “was proportionate and necessary in the interests of advocating the rights of others. Accordingly, the reason for any less favourable treatment was not the claimants’ gender-critical belief or lack of a belief in gender identity theory.” The union also denies the claim that its conduct amounted to harassment. The tribunal continues in Watford today. Article Name:Academics claim union discriminated against their views on gender Publication:The Guardian Author:Sally Weale Education correspondent Start Page:17 End Page:17
The Times [1]
White Lotus creator cut out non-binary character United States Keiran Southern - Los Angeles In the show Carrie Coon plays Laurie, who originally had a trans daughter. In The White Lotus, few things are off limits. There is sex, violence and, as viewers of season three will know, incest, all in luxurious holiday destinations around the world. Yet back home in the United States, with fear spreading through Hollywood amid concerns of retribution from President Trump, even the taboobusting HBO series may have concluded it is sometimes necessary to play it safe. Carrie Coon, one of the stars of the show, has revealed that its creator, Mike White, cut a storyline about her character’s non-binary daughter in what she said was a response to Trump’s election victory and his subsequent challenge to transgender rights. Coon, who plays the New York lawyer Laurie on the show, said there had been “more context to her home life” before White decided to rewrite the script. “You originally found out that her daughter was ... non-binary, maybe trans, and going by they/them,” Coon told Harper’s Bazaar. “You see Laurie struggling to explain it to her friends, struggling to use they/them pronouns, struggling with the language, which was all interesting.” Coon, 44, said Laurie’s non-binary daughter had added extra friction to a viral scene in the third episode of the latest season in which one of her friends suggests she voted for Trump. “It was only a short scene but, for me, it did make the question of whether Kate voted for Trump so much more provocative and personally offensive to Laurie, considering who her child is in the world,” she said. Season three was written before the election, Coon said. In the months since Trump took office he has ordered a ban on transgender people in the military and directed the federal government to recognise only two genders. Coon said White had responded to “the way the Trump administration has weaponised the cultural war against transgender people”, adding: “When the time came to cut the episode down, Mike felt that the scene was so small and the topic so big that it wasn’t the right way to engage in that conversation.” Hollywood began hedging its bets even before Trump defeated Kamala Harris. The Apprentice, a biopic about Trump’s rise in the cut-throat world of New York real estate, was well-received at the Cannes film festival last May but struggled to find a US distributor. Despite the presence of its stars Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong — who earned Oscar nominations for their performances — big studios would not go near The Apprentice. The Trump campaign threatened to sue over the film, which included a scene in which the future president raped his first wife, Ivana, describing it as “malicious defamation”. The film was finally picked up by Briarcliff Entertainment and released in October but made only $4 million at the North American box office. Other entertainment companies are calculating how to respond to the second Trump era. Trump has vowed to strip diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from public life. Hollywood’s response to the onslaught has largely been muted — a sharp contrast to Trump’s first term, when the entertainment industry led the resistance to his White House.
Daily Mail [1]
Rowling hits out at nursery that suspended ‘anti-trans’ toddler Daily Mail1 Apr 2025By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Warning: JK Rowling JK ROWLING has described the suspension of a toddler from nursery after they were accused of transphobia or homophobia as ‘totalitarian insanity’. Her comments come after a child, aged either three or four, was suspended for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’. The suspension was revealed as part of figures from the Department for Education which also showed that 94 pupils at primary schools were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia or homophobia in the same year. This included ten pupils from Year 1 and three from Year 2, where the maximum age is seven, and one child of nursery age. All of the recorded incidents took place in the 2022-23 academic year at state schools, according to the Telegraph. Posting on X, JK Rowling said: ‘This is totalitarian insanity. If you think small children should be punished for being able to recognise sex, you are a dangerous zealot who should be nowhere near kids or in any position of authority over them.’ Across all state primaries, the number of pupils suspended or expelled for homophobic or ‘Projecting adult concepts’ transphobic behaviour increased from 164 in 2021-22 to 178 in 202223. This data has only been collected since the 2020-21 academic year, and students can be excluded for multiple reasons. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: ‘Every once in a while, the extremes of gender ideology throw up a story that seems too crazy to believe, and a toddler being suspended from nursery for so-called “transphobia” or homophobia is one such example. ‘Teachers and school leaders involved in this insanity should be ashamed of themselves for projecting adult concepts and beliefs on to such young children.’ The largest number of suspensions for homophobia or transphobia in 2022-23 was in Essex, with 16, followed by Birmingham, 15, Bradford, 11, and Norfolk, eight. Lord Young, director of the Free Speech Union, told the Telegraph: ‘If your ideology is so rigid it justifies you punishing toddlers for not complying with it, that’s a powerful argument for discarding it in favour of something less dogmatic.’ In 2022, the parents of a six-year-old boy at a Church of England school in the Isle of Wight were warned in a letter that their son might be deemed ‘transphobic’ if he were to question another pupil wearing a dress. Sally and Nigel Rowe said they received a letter from the headteacher and chair of governors which declared pupils could be designated the term if they showed ‘an inability to believe a transgender person is actually a ‘’real’’ female or male.’ The Department for Education said: ‘All pupils and staff should feel safe and protected at school and should never face violence or abuse. The Education Secretary expects school leaders to enforce good behaviour and we are committed to a comprehensive programme of behaviour support for schools.’ Article Name:Rowling hits out at nursery that suspended ‘anti-trans’ toddler Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:13 End Page:13
Telegraph [3]
Branding toddlers transphobic is on a par with purging babies of evil spirits The Daily Telegraph1 Apr 2025Celia Walden The nursery school number comes up on your phone and you panic. Of course you do. The worst-case scenario is quickly discounted. Your three-year-old hasn’t had a close encounter with a concrete step or fallen off the climbing frame. He or she is, however, in trouble. A lot of trouble. Your mind’s running wild. Little Johnny can be rambunctious. He doesn’t always adhere to the “sharing is caring” mantra you’ve tried to instil in him. But it’s not about either of those things. No, your three-year-old is to be suspended – suspended – for “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”. He’s not a tantrum-thrower or a rough-player: he’s a little transphobe. As with so many scenarios in the age of extremist gender ideology, you couldn’t make it up. I wish I had, but Department for Education data seen by The Telegraph clearly show that this incident actually happened. In 2022-23, a child, aged either three or four, was indeed suspended from a state nursery in this country, after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic. And if that child’s parents are reading this now, please get in touch and tell us what particular form your toddler’s “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity” took? Because I think I speak for all of us when I say that we’re struggling to understand. Did he or she call a female classmate a “girl”? Did they ask Mr Davis, the expressive arts teacher, why he was wearing a skirt or query the theme in Michael Hall’s Red: A Crayon’s Story (a trans parable masquerading as a children’s story in which a red pencil identifies as blue)? Transphobic tots aren’t as uncommon as you might think, as it turns out. According to the same set of statistics, 94 pupils at state primary schools were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia and homophobia in 2022-23. These included 10 pupils from Year 1 (five to six-year-olds) and three from Year 2 (six to seven-year-olds). And to think that all this bigotry took place within the confines of the school day! Goodness knows what these menaces to society got up to in their spare time. They were probably out with their neo-Nazi gangs smashing windows and spray-painting hateful messages across LGBTQ+ community centres. Then there are the miniature sexual harassers, the pocket-sized Harvey Weinsteins. You may remember a parliamentary report last November prompting the Did they ask Mr Davis, the expressive arts teacher, why he was wearing a skirt? double-take-worthy headline: “More and more schoolkids being sent home for sexually assaulting classmates.” I certainly remember balking at the first few statistics. How could cases of children being sent home for sexually assaulting or harassing their classmates have more than doubled in a year? Then I reached the part where I was informed that “even in primary schools, there were 618 suspensions for sexual misconduct in 2023, with some as young as four displaying disturbing behaviour”. What’s “disturbing” here – what’s disgusting, disgraceful, shameful and warped to the nth degree – is not the three-year-old “transphobe” or the four-year-old “predator” but the adult capable of projecting these concepts, narratives and beliefs on to our children. And how can there be more than one of these freaks out there? These people are so far gone they’re on a par with the cult members who insist newborn babies must be purged of evil. So unquestioning is their loyalty to “the cause”, so blinded are they by their own ideology, that they are members of a cult. For that reason, they won’t understand how damaging this latest story will be to the cause. Remember that children – and children’s mental and physical wellbeing – are supposedly at the centre of their argument. Hence the despicable question levelled at parents querying the necessity of so-called “gender-affirming treatment” for their child: “Would you rather a dead daughter or a living son?” (Never mind that the treatment has been proved not to alleviate suicide risk in the youth who seek it out – this lot doesn’t get stuck down in the weeds with facts). What, out of interest, does branding a four-year-old “transphobic” or expelling a six-year-old for “sexual harassment” do to that child’s mental health? Yesterday, Lord Young – the director of the Free Speech Union – said: “If your ideology is so rigid it justifies you punishing toddlers for not complying with it, that’s a powerful argument for discarding it in favour of something less dogmatic.” I’d go a step further and say that once you start punishing toddlers for ideological non-compliance, you’ve not just lost the room but your integrity – and any hope of regaining it. Article Name:Branding toddlers transphobic is on a par with purging babies of evil spirits Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Celia Walden Start Page:7 End Page:7
Starmer criticises nursery over ‘transphobic’ toddler The Daily Telegraph1 Apr 2025By Dominic Penna SIR KEIR STARMER does “not support” a toddler being suspended from nursery after being accused of transphobia, Downing Street has said. Data from the Department for Education (DFE) show that the child, aged either three or four, was suspended from a state school in the 2022-23 academic year. The reason stated was “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”, although the school and further details of the case were not disclosed. As well as the child of nursery age, almost 100 state primary school pupils were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia and homophobia in the same academic year. They included 10 pupils from year one and three from year two, where the maximum age is seven. Asked about the suspension of the nursery pupil, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Obviously, the Prime Minister would not support those sorts of measures. But equally I don’t know the specific incident in the case. “I think the data around this is all pretty significantly analysed, so I think it’s quite hard to provide any comment on any specific cases. “Pupils and staff should never be subject to abuse, but any action taken to tackle behaviour should also be proportionate.” The number of pupils suspended or expelled for homophobic or transphobic behaviour increased from 164 in 2021-22 to 178 in 2022-23. Article Name:Starmer criticises nursery over ‘transphobic’ toddler Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Dominic Penna Start Page:2 End Page:2
Couple threatened with arrest for trans complaints The Daily Telegraph1 Apr 2025By Natasha Leake A RETIRED college lecturer claims police threatened him with arrest if he contacted his councillor over an event that excluded transgender people. Dave Boardman and his wife Viv, both 67, claim two officers arrived at their home in Hebden Bridge, West Yorks, to question them about an allegation of harassment in February 2023. They were told Rebecca Boden, their Labour councillor, had complained about emails Mr Boardman had sent her about a women-only fundraising event that did not admit biological males, The Times reported. Bodycam footage obtained by the couple via a subject access request shows the officers speaking to the couple, the newspaper reported. One officer said: “We don’t intend to get into the argument and why you’re to-ing and fro-ing between the two of you. The reason why we’ve come to speak to you is to say please don’t contact her again. She has been told the same, not to contact you about this issue.” Mr Boardman responds in disbelief that he is being told by police he must not contact his local councillor. Instead, the officer advises Mr Boardman to go to his other two local councillors to address any concerns for his “own protection”. He says that if Mr Boardman continues to email Boden and she then makes a formal complaint “we could be inviting you down to the police station”. The dispute between Mr Boardman and Ms Boden started in January 2023 and centred around a “women-only” fundraising event run by his daughter. She was raising money to pay for legal action she was bringing against a music college which she claims unfairly dismissed her for asking students to debate whether drag acts were sexist, and being labelled transphobic by students. Invitations to the event were only open to biological women, causing complaints that it was not transinclusive, which led to the event being temporarily cancelled. After the event, Mr Boardman sent several emails to Boden because he believed she was encouraging a campaign to get his daughter’s fundraiser cancelled for not being “trans-inclusive”. Mr Boardman told The Times: “The whole thing is ridiculous, but sadly it’s a sign of the times of what’s happening to our democracy.” A West Yorkshire Police spokesman told the newspaper: “The footage has been fully reviewed and it is deemed our officers acted and advised appropriately to prevent any further issues or any crimes occurring.” Article Name:Couple threatened with arrest for trans complaints Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Natasha Leake Start Page:4 End Page:4

Wednesday Total: 2

The Times [1]
‘Transphobe’ film-makers sue union David Leask Simply discussing gender-critical views can result in someone being branded a transphobe, an academic suing her union has claimed. Deirdre O’Neill and her colleague Michael Wayne were criticised by the University and College Union (UCU) when they tried to show their film Adult Human Female at Edinburgh University three years ago. The documentary was twice blocked by protesters supported by union leaders who felt the film incited hate of transgender people. O’Neill and Wayne, scholars at Hertfordshire and Brunel universities, are taking the UCU to an employment tribunal, arguing the criticism amounted to unlawful discrimination. O’Neill told the tribunal it was “very important to hear both sides of the argument”. She added: “The bar is so low now that any attempt to discuss [this area] and you get accused of being a transphobe ... there’s no hate in the film. Trans rights in some areas clash with female rights; we wanted to work out how we address that.” The tribunal, which is being held remotely, was told the documentary, released in November 2022, examined claims made by trans rights activists that “trans women are women and should be treated as women in all legal and social contexts”. When the UCU’s Edinburgh branch became aware of a planned screening at the university in December 2022, a letter was sent to the principal, Peter Mathieson, demanding that the event be halted, the tribunal was told. The union also made a series of social media posts describing the screening as transphobic hate and encouraging protests. After a protest halted the first screening, the UCU Edinburgh branch president, Grant Buttars, published an article celebrating the “victory”. A second attempt to show the film was thwarted, but the screening went ahead in November 2023 when the university hired extra security. Women who wanted to use the toilet had to be “escorted” for their own safety, the tribunal was told. Union leaders will give evidence later. LGBT activists have previously suggested the film did not meet academic standards.
Telegraph [1]
Lecturer sues union over ban on screening her trans-critical film The Daily Telegraph2 Apr 2025By Telegraph Reporter A UNIVERSITY lecturer is suing her own union for stopping a transcritical film being shown to students. Dr Deirdre O’neill, a lecturer at Hertfordshire University, and Michael Wayne, a professor at Brunel University, were criticised by the University and College Union over their film, which argues against claims made by trans rights activists. A tribunal, which is being held remotely, heard that in November 2022, the pair released Adult Human Female, which examines claims made by trans rights activists that “trans women are women and should be treated as women in all legal and social contexts”. The UCU condemned the film as an attack on trans identity. Protesters, including some in balaclavas, twice blocked screenings at the University of Edinburgh and “hurled insults at those trying to attend”, documents presented to the tribunal said. The academics say the UCU’S public opposition to them amounted to unlawful discrimination on grounds of their gender-critical belief that there are only two sexes. When UCU’S Edinburgh branch became aware of a planned screening at the university in December 2022, a letter was sent to principal Peter Mathieson, demanding that the screening be halted, the tribunal heard. The union also launched a series of social media posts denouncing the screening, describing it as transphobic hate, and encouraging protests, the tribunal was told. On the day of the screening, protesters, including students, blocked the entrance to the venue as well as a back-up venue. Grant Buttars, the UCU Edinburgh branch president, later published an article describing the “victory” of having blocked the screening, the tribunal was told. When the screening was rearranged for April 2023, it was again blocked by protesters, who shouted insults at those trying to attend, the tribunal heard. The screening was eventually able to go ahead in November 2023, but Dr O’neill said the university had to bring in extra security for the event. Women who wanted to go to the toilet during the screening had to be “escorted by security” for their own safety, the tribunal heard. Defending the film, Dr O’neill told the tribunal it was “very important to hear both sides of the argument”. A lawyer representing the UCU questioned the academic on some of the opinions shared by contributors in the film. Dr O’neill continued: “The bar is so low now that any attempt to discuss (this area) and you get accused of being a transphobe.” The academic told the tribunal she wanted to start a discussion about the topic. “We wanted people to be able to come along and say ‘Actually, you’re not quite right there’,” she added. “There’s no hate in the film. Trans rights in some areas clash with female rights, we wanted to work out how we address that.” The tribunal continues. ♦ Trans activists are urging NHS staff to campaign against plans to protect women by collecting data on sex and not gender. They have posted on NHS England’s LGBT intranet to implore doctors and nurses to show their “allyship” by writing to their MP to oppose the proposed changes. Critics say allowing public bodies to remove sex from records compromises research and makes it difficult for researchers to spot trends in rape cases, medical trials or gender pay gaps. ‘The bar is so low now that any attempt to discuss [this area] and you get accused of being a transphobe’ Article Name:Lecturer sues union over ban on screening her trans-critical film Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Telegraph Reporter Start Page:7 End Page:7

Thursday Total: 5

The Times [1]
Surgeons ‘deserve jail’ for gender ops on teens David Sanderson - Arts Correspondent Some doctors who have performed gender reassignment surgery on teenagers should be jailed for life, a leading gender-critical author has said amid a large student protest. Helen Joyce, the author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality , which has become one of the most contentious books of the decade, said yesterday that she would “love it” if such surgeons were prosecuted, adding however that doctors always escaped punishment for “medical scandals”. Joyce also told the Oxford Literary Festival that the “grown-ups had left the room” during the growth of trans ideology, claiming that people in leadership positions in Britain were “cowards” and “mediocre”. Joyce’s appearance — her first at any book festival since Trans was published in 2021 despite its positive reviews and good sales — was accompanied by a protest by trans-rights activists. In February protesters walked out of a talk by Joyce at the town’s Balliol College. At yesterday’s talk with fellow writer Julie Bindel, Joyce said trans ideology — or the belief that people have gender identities that may not align with their biological sex — had been “entrenched everywhere” after “spreading so quickly” and was a “social contagion, especially between teenagers”. Joyce, a former journalist and now the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, which describes itself as a human rights charity, said that she held out hope that Britain’s courts would redress the matter. “In courts now and again you get a precedent, and finally people in politics are going to realise this is not popular,” she said. Joyce, who has had difficulties getting bookshops to stock Trans, said of doctors who had performed gender reassignment surgery: “There is never justice, these doctors are never held to account. I’m not even hoping for that. It is so impossible in my opinion, but I would love it. “There are people I would like to name right now who I would like to see in jail for the rest of their lives.”
Daily Mail [3]
Nurses’ legal battle af ter they were told to share changing room with trans colleague Daily Mail3 Apr 2025By Chris Pollard Steely drive: Sally Becker with rescued children from Ukraine FEMALE nurses forced to share a changing room with a trans woman called Rose have launched a landmark legal battle with the NHS. The eight nurses say that allowing a male-born colleague to use the women’s facilities at Darlington Memorial Hospital puts them at risk, deprives them of dignity and breaches their human rights. They claim Rose Henderson, who was born male but now identifies as a woman, has stared at their breasts and ‘lingered too long’ in the changing room, as well as repeatedly asked them whether they are getting changed. Seven of the eight nurses appeared at a preliminary hearing at Newcastle Tribunals Centre yesterday. Their case was adjourned until October 20 while the NHS carries out an internal investigation. Tribunal Judge Stuart Robinson said: ‘These are important proceedings. The issues are complex.’ One of the women, Bethany Hutchison, said outside court: ‘We are nurses who love our jobs and our patients and only want to be afforded the dignity of getting dressed and undressed for work without a man present. ‘I would like to remind everyone that we are doing this for the safety and dignity of every woman and girl across society and that we will continue to fight these unlawful policies. ‘Thank you again to our many supporters. We see you and hear you and are delighted to stand with you.’ The women are bringing their case against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust on the grounds of sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation and breaches of the right to a private life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. The trust claimed a postponement was necessary to allow more time for an internal investigation to be completed. Judge Robinson said the hearing will take four weeks, not the original estimate of three, given about 30 witnesses are expected to give evidence. At an earlier hearing, the nurses claimed that after raising their concerns with HR, they were told they need to be ‘re-educated’ and ‘more inclusive’. They also said Rose’s behaviour changed after the complaint. Bethany Hutchison said they ‘started to feel quite intimidated’. A sign appeared on the door of the female changing room saying ‘inclusive changing room’. The nurses who complained were forced to change in a side office re-branded as ‘temporary changing rooms’, while Rose continued to use the female changing room. The nurses, who are being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, have previously handed a petition to Downing Street about the issue and met Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Last year, Mr Streeting wrote on social media: ‘I support the nurses and I’m horrified that they’ve had to resort to legal action. We’ve got to find a way through that treats trans people with respect and respects women’s safe spaces.’ THREE years ago, Sally Becker took a train through war-torn Ukraine in the dead of night. She wasn’t so much in fear of her own life but the lives of the 91 women and children she was taking with her on this perilous journey. They had been trapped in one of the worst hit areas and Sally, an experienced aid worker, had been tasked with transporting them across the border to safety. ‘It was scary,’ admits Sally, with characteristic understatement. ‘The train, provided by Ukrainian authorities, had blackout blinds so we couldn’t be seen by Russian drones overhead. ‘The atmosphere was intense and baking hot – there was no air conditioning and the windows were locked for safety. ‘We were cooped up in three small carriages for 22 hours. The children, who ranged from babies to teenagers, raced up and down the corridors, mercifully oblivious to the dangers. But the adults were in dread of being hit any minute.’ Thankfully, they made it to Poland and, after weeks of negotiation with the Home Office, some found homes in Wales. As terrifying as it sounds, it was all in a day’s work for Sally, who’s been nominated in the Daily Mail’s Inspirational Women Awards for her role helping sick and injured children in war-torn countries. Sally started volunteering as an aid worker in Bosnia in 1993. Her exceptional bravery and single-minded determination saw her save the lives of hundreds of children by crossing through enemy lines to transport them to safety, winning her the affectionate name, The Angel of Mostar. Risking her life, she embarked on a series of missions in Kosovo and later across northern Iraq. NOW 63, you may imagine Sally to be retired from war zones. You’d be wrong; this extraordinary woman is as fired up by injustice in the world as ever. ‘The most distressing thing is that nothing has changed since I started,’ says Sally, whose gentle voice belies her steely determination. ‘It’s still horrific. It’s still shocking. I still find it traumatic to see children in that condition. ‘It’s so unnecessary. We’re killing children when, once upon a time, we would have sent our armies to far-flung fields to battle it out between them. Now women and children suffer the most.’ When war broke out in Ukraine, Sally, who lives in Brighton with her journalist daughter, Billie, 25, made a series of dangerous treks by road across the country to help evacuate 240 women and children. Including that treacherous train journey. As if that isn’t challenge enough, over the last year she has helped organise the evacuation of 40 sick and wounded children from Gaza to Italy for specialist treatment. One boy in particular proved an inspiration to Sally: Kamal, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, who lost a leg just below his groin. ‘There were all these ambulances ready to take the children off the plane with stretchers,’ she recalls. ‘But Kamal refused to be helped. I choked back tears at the sight of this very independent young man who wanted to walk with his crutches.’ So how did Sally’s adventures begin? In 1993, then 31, she was making a living as an artist when she heard about the conflict in Bosnia and felt compelled to help. She had planned to volunteer for a few weeks before slotting back into her old world. Instead, that first visit changed the course of her life for ever. ‘I contacted a lot of organisations offering my help, but they didn’t want me because I had no relevant experience,’ she says. ‘I wasn’t a nurse or an engineer.’ Undaunted, she volunteered to drive aid to the region and made her way into Mostar, the heart of the conflict. The eastern part was completely blockaded and as many as 60,000 people were trapped; some dying for want of the most basic medical supplies. Sally’s breakthrough came when she was approached by a UN Civil Affairs officer who’d heard about her work delivering aid to the hospital in West Mostar. As she was one of the only international aid workers allowed to go in and out of the city, he asked her to help evacuate children from the east side. After gaining permission from the head of the Croat Military Health Authorities to rescue all the wounded children and their mothers, she drove across the front line in an old Bedford ambulance. That didn’t stop her coming under fire from snipers in the surrounding hills. ‘When I heard the crack of the bullets I was terrified,’ says Sally. ‘I didn’t know whether to stop and shelter behind the vehicle or try to run away. But I decided to keep going and eventually made it to the hospital.’ The ensuing months saw her bring a convoy of 57 ambulances and trucks from Brighton, carrying £1m worth of medical aid and evacuating 100 injured children and their mothers from the area. Two months later, she returned to rescue 28 injured children and their mothers by helicopter from a monastery in central Bosnia. But she didn’t always escape unscathed. Following a mission in 1998 to bring 15 injured children and their families across the mountains from Kosovo, two masked gunmen ambushed her outside her hotel in northern Albania. As Sally threw herself to the ground, a shot whistled through the air, hitting her leg. ‘At first I didn’t know what had happened,’ recalls Sally. ‘But my colleague, a former nurse, said, “You’ve been shot!” I could feel the ground soaking wet beneath me and realised it was blood.’ Sally’s life was saved by Bill Foxton, a British veteran who was in Kosovo with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and happened to be staying in a nearby hotel. Bill, a former army major, threw her in an army truck and drove her to hospital at breakneck speed, where he helped to staunch the flow of blood, saving her leg and probably her life. SALLY ended up falling in love with Bill. In 1999, and back home in Brighton, she gave birth to their daughter, Billie. Sadly her relationship with Bill ended soon after and he moved to Afghanistan before his death in 2009. ‘As a single mum, I have been very conscious I need to stay safe for my daughter,’ says Sally. ‘There have been times I felt guilty leaving Billie with my mother while I was away. But plenty of women do dangerous jobs. It’s no different for me. ‘While I try to be extra careful, I can’t turn my back on the children who need me. Every time I have to cross a front line, I’m terrified, though. It’s just, having done it before, it’s hard to say no.’ Now grown up, Billie is so supportive of her mother she joined her in Poland in 2022 to help the children escaping from Ukraine. If this isn’t impressive enough, in 2021 Sally launched the ground-breaking Save A Child app. This allows Sally and her small team to connect medics treating children in remote or war-torn areas with specialists. ‘We now have over 300 specialists throughout the world to call on,’ she says. ‘It means a doctor or nurse treating children in areas like Gaza can reach out and get expert help within an hour or two, which is often the difference between life and death. We have saved many babies in Afghanistan thanks to our neo-natal experts in the UK and Sweden. ‘Just this week a doctor in Afghanistan was trying to treat a little boy with a severely injured arm. Gangrene was setting in and the doctor didn’t know the best way to treat him. We allocated the case to one of our trauma specialists and the boy’s arm has been saved.’ It’s stories like these that keep this incredible woman going. As Sally herself says, ‘It’s my life now and has been for over 30 years. I can’t see myself ever stopping.’ Sally’s autobiography, Where Angels Fear To Tread, is published on April 10. Article Name:Nurses’ legal battle af ter they were told to share changing room with trans colleague Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Chris Pollard Start Page:10 End Page:10
Four years ago, I wanted to be a boy and was set on having my breasts removed. Now I realise I was a girl all along Daily Mail3 Apr 2025INTERVIEW by Helen Carroll Photography: LEZLI+ROSE/MARK HARRISON; Hair and makeup: ALICE THEOBALD @arlingtonartists/DESMOND GRUNDY Change of heart: Macc before and after her de-transition 2021 NOW TINY white ra-ra skirt, red and black boned bodice, and lashings of mascara and lipstick. The risque outfit her 16-year-old daughter wore for a Halloween party last year will forever be etched in Clare Macnaughton’s memory. But far from telling her to cover up, Clare felt secretly overjoyed. Context is everything: four years prior to that night, Isabella, known as Macc, had insisted that she was no longer a girl, initially identifying as non-binary and then as a trans boy – and even binding her breasts. So this overt display of femininity was a very welcome sight indeed for Clare. ‘It has been quite a journey, for both Macc and me,’ says Clare, 53, from Warminster, Wiltshire. ‘From the age of 12, she was adamant she was non-binary and, by age 13, that she was a boy. ‘I’ve done my best to support her at every stage, but I drew the line at giving my consent for her to have the testosterone and double mastectomy she was so intent on. And thank goodness I did.’ Macc, who once thought her mother ‘unreasonable’, is equally relieved she resisted her ever more insistent pleas. ‘If I’d had hormones, I think I would have thought, “S***, I’m in too deep, I can’t de-transition now”, and felt stuck,’ she says candidly. The ordeal was all the more difficult for the fact that Macc’s dad, Kai, died of cancer in 2023. ‘For two years, I haven’t had a husband to talk through the complexities with,’ says Clare. ‘On top of my grief, there were times when I really struggled – and Macc did too. ‘Like me, Kai had a sense that Macc would go back to being a girl. However, her de-transitioning now feels bittersweet because the last time he saw her, she was still insisting she was our son. I would’ve loved for him to see her as his little girl again.’ Meanwhile, for any anxious parents of trans kids who may take heart from Macc’s de-transition, she is keen to stress that hers is an unusual case: ‘I know that when their kids transition a lot of parents think, “Oh, I hope they come back to their senses” but I am rare. ‘I know so many people who are so happy having transitioned so I want to be clear that, just because one person de-transitions, it doesn’t mean everyone will.’ There’s no denying it’s a dramatic volte-face. So convinced was Macc that her future self would have surgery, grow a beard and live as a man, that she and her mother shared their story in Femail in November 2021. Macc was 13 at the time. You may well question how on earth the change of heart came about. Clare puts it down to Macc suddenly realising that she found boys attractive – and that both heterosexual and gay boys were largely disinterested in trans boys like her. Macc believes that wearing bikinis and cropped tops during a family holiday in Kenya – where it was too hot for her usual jeans and shirts, with a chest binder underneath – made her embrace her femininity. ‘I remember thinking, “Ooh I like wearing feminine clothing and acting like a girl”,’ says Macc. ‘I told my friend Keny, who was on holiday with us, but I didn’t want to tell anyone else because I didn’t want them “Told you so!” – even behind my back. ‘My grandmother and other older members of my wider family had said I wouldn’t always be a boy, and that made me all the more determined to prove them wrong. So it was hard proving them right.’ Clare recalls her daughter flirting with a boy staying at the same hotel on Diani Beach in Kenya’s Indian Ocean, and later confiding, crestfallen: ‘He’s not interested in me because I’m trans and he’s heterosexual.’ ‘I comforted her but knew better than to suggest this might be a recurring issue – it would have only made her dig her heels in,’ says Clare. ‘However, back home, she told me one day, in the car, that she was no longer “so fixated on gender”. ‘Again I didn’t give a big reaction, just nodded along. But I was secretly hopeful. Then, when she was starting sixthform college the following month, I asked what gender she wanted to register her place in and she said “girl”. ‘By then, she was wearing make-up and more feminine clothes, so it didn’t come as a big surprise, and I said “OK”. ‘I knew the last thing she wanted was for me to make a big fuss about her de-transitioning so I’ve played it very cool.’ The first inkling that Macc was ‘unhappy in her body’ came when she was 12 years old. Clare, an author, was driving her daughter home from the stables where she spent a lot of time riding when Macc announced she was neither a girl nor a boy, but non-binary. She had always been a bit of a tomboy, preferring joggers and hoodies to dresses, but had also enjoyed playing with traditional girls’ toys, including dolls. ‘There had been no signs of gender dysphoria beforehand, otherwise I’d probably have taken it more seriously,’ says Clare. ‘Instead I said, “Well, it’s not like Woolworth’s pick and mix, you don’t just choose one.”’ It was during the pandemic and Clare was aware that Macc was spending a lot of time on TikTok, where there are currently 43million posts relating to being non-binary. Telling herself it was probably just a phase, Clare ‘just listened’ – firmly believing that pushing back would only make her daughter more entrenched in her beliefs. Wondering if it was a reaction to societal pressures to be sexual once you hit puberty, Clare confided in Macc that she hadn’t felt especially girly as an adolescent, either. She’d been unhappy with periods and breasts, though she embraced her femininity now. When Macc cut her long hair into a short, spiky style, she didn’t object. But when she asked for a chest binder to hide her developing breasts, Clare said that she would need to use her own spending money for that. An internet search revealed that if worn incorrectly or for too long, binders can lead to chest or back pain, bruising and even rib fractures, shortness of breath, skin damage and over-heating. When the £12 black binder arrived from Amazon, Clare relayed this information to Macc, who agreed to take breaks from the tight crop topstyle garment with hooks and eyes down one side. ‘As a feminist, I struggled with Macc rejecting being female,’ she says. ‘But I also understand why someone may want the advantages that come with presenting as male.’ Telling herself this ‘phase’ had been triggered by a combination of the onset of puberty and the weirdness of the pandemic, Clare was pragmatic, believing the most important thing was to stay strong and supportive – in order to avoid triggering a ‘mental health crisis’. Her husband Kai agreed and was supportive because, she says, the last thing he would have wanted was to alienate Macc. By her 14th birthday, the following April, Macc had decided she was no longer non-binary but, in fact, a boy. Although her style of clothes – jeans, cargo pants and shirts – didn’t change, her pronouns became he/ him – and woe-betide anyone who got them wrong. ‘Although I generally took a chilled approach, no matter how challenging it was hearing her talk about “chopping her t**s off”, I remember Macc shouting at me after I mistakenly referred to her as “she”,’ recalls Clare. ‘I blurted out, “They, them, him, he, she, her, it – whatever!” in frustration. ‘I consider myself pretty liberal-minded but tip-toeing around all of these pronouns – some of which seem ungrammatical – felt utterly exhausting. Macc called me “disrespectful” and I remember rolling my eyes, like a teenager myself. It wasn’t my finest moment.’ When Clare asked why she had decided to identify as a boy, Macc’s only explanation was: ‘Because it makes me happy.’ ‘If she’d told me she felt more affinity with boys, it would have made more sense, but this felt like a fairly vague reason for doing something so extreme,’ says Clare. ‘I didn’t challenge her but I do remember offloading to friends, saying, “Identifying as a size eight makes me happy, but it doesn’t make it real!” ‘Although I’ve never put this to Macc, I had a sense that this gender journey was rooted in her need for attention because in the preceding years her older brother, Ben, who’s 21, and has ADHD, had needed more parental support.’ In spring 2022, Macc informed her teachers that she was now a boy and, after her mother gave her consent by email, had her name changed from Isabella to Macc Macnaughton on the register. She used ‘gender neutral’ toilets in school, while continuing to visit women’s loos when out and about, finding the men’s ‘gross’. She also stuck to the girls’ changing rooms for PE because she felt self-conscious undressing in front of boys and wanted to be with her female friends. Macc had always worn trousers as part of her school uniform and says her ‘woke’ friends didn’t comsaying, If I’d taken hormones, I think I would have felt stuck ment on either her initial declaration that she was non-binary, or her subsequent transition to being a boy. Eventually, when she turned 16 last April, she paid £50 out of her own savings to change her name by deed poll, officially becoming Macc Kai James Macnaughton. Still grieving her father, a Squadron Leader and helicopter pilot in the RAF, who died within three weeks of being diagnosed with blood vessel cancer, she wanted to honour him. The impact of suddenly losing a loving and ‘supportive’ father cannot be underestimated. Macc finds it difficult to talk about, though she doesn’t believe his death had any bearing on her de-transitioning. Clare, meanwhile, is unsure what, if any, impact it may have had. It was just a month after changing her name by deed poll, while on their holiday in Kenya, that Macc began to question her gender again. While previously, Macc couldn’t look at her naked body without the binder, she was surprised to find she enjoyed strutting about on the beach in a bikini. And while she had only ever dated girls, she suddenly found herself attracted to boys – and now considers herself bisexual. The desire to embrace her femininity was so great that, back home in Warminster, Macc ditched the chest binder and began dipping into her mother’s make-up bag. ‘It was strange, at first, seeing my reflection in the mirror – how “girly” I looked in mascara and lipstick,’ says Macc. ‘But I don’t wear much make-up and my hair is still pretty short, so my friends tell me I look like a lesbian, which I’m happy with.’ Last September, Macc started college, where she is studying a Level Three Extended Diploma in Public Services. She registered as a girl – ‘Isabella, known as Macc’ – and began growing her hair and buying her cosmetics. Her favourite brands now include Rimmel and MUA. Watching the re-blossoming of her ‘beautiful daughter’, but fearing that too much attention might send her scuttling back to her more androgynous look, Clare was careful to say as little as possible. Clare’s new partner, Pete, whom she met eight months after Kai’s death, now lives with them. ‘I do have to say something when she walks around the house in her bra and hot pants,’ says Clare, laughing. ‘Otherwise, I turn a blind eye, including to the dresses she’s just bought from ASOS – short and strapless, with crossover backs, in flimsy Lycra.’ Clare believes this ‘unhysterical’ approach to parenting has been instrumental in helping to steer her daughter through the various stages of her gender journey. Her advice to other parents whose children identify as transgender is not to bow to pressure to consent to hormones and surgery – encourage them to wait until they’re 18 and can take those steps, should they still choose to, as adults. As a result, Macc’s return to being a girl involved nothing more arduous than changing her legal name back, by deed poll, to Isabella Elizabeth. Had she undergone a double mastectomy and been given testosterone, it would have been a very different story. The next step is to get the name on her GCSE certificates altered from Macc – something the exam boards say can be done – so as not to confuse future employers who may ask to see them. As for letting her friends know, Macc used her generation’s preferred way of communicating and simply changed her pronouns to she/her on Instagram. ‘I let people just figure it out when they saw me wearing make-up and everyone was really polite, not mentioning it or just asking, “Are you going by ‘she’ now?”,’ recalls Macc, adding, with a smile: ‘But my granny didn’t hide her feelings. ‘She said, “Ooh look at my gorgeous granddaughter!” All her other grandkids are boys, so I think she’s glad.’ Macc is conscious that most people in her small town are aware of the journey she’s been on. In fact, her boyfriend has been teased by friends who tell him he’s ‘dating a boy’. ‘I’m sure they call me slurs behind my back, but I don’t ask,’ she says. ‘And he doesn’t care what they say, he’s pretty strong-minded.’ What, I wonder, with the benefit of hindsight, does Macc make of her journey from girl to boy and back again? ‘I think it came from the sexism in the world, how women are hated on, and how privileged men are,’ she says. ‘At first I fancied being not fully a boy, but mostly a boy, and then I thought I want to be fully a boy and was serious about getting top surgery and starting on testosterone. ‘That changed though, on that holiday, when I realised I liked aspects of being feminine.’ And what of the role of TikTok, which Clare feels played a significant part in all of this? ‘I already felt not feminine, more masculine or androgynous, and then I found non-binary TikTok and trans TikTok and thought, “Oh, that’s how I feel”. I could really relate to it and I just felt really seen.’ Looking back, Clare is relieved to have ‘neither prevented nor enabled’ Macc’s transition. ‘It was self-protection, as much as anything,’ she says. ‘We mothers get blamed for everything, and I had this vision of an older version of Macc asking, “Why didn’t you stop me? Why did you let me do that? I was a child, you should have known.” ‘I’m not sure how significant, or not, my response to all this has been because, ultimately, what changed is that Macc’s transgender status had become an obstacle to her desires. ‘However, it is lovely having my beautiful, feisty, opinionated daughter back. ‘And her new-found interest in fashion, make-up and the length of her hair certainly makes for more enjoyable conversation than her preoccupation with pronouns.’ Mothers get blamed for everything – I had this vision of her asking me later: ‘Why didn’t you stop me?’ MUM CLARE On holiday, I realised I liked aspects of being feminine Article Name:Four years ago, I wanted to be a boy and was set on having my breasts removed. Now I realise I was a girl all along Publication:Daily Mail Author:INTERVIEW by Helen Carroll Start Page:32 End Page:32
Telegraph [1]
Stickers saying ‘I love JK Rowling’ not transphobic, tribunal told The Daily Telegraph3 Apr 2025By Telegraph Reporter The stickers were spotted on the University of Edinburgh’s campus STICKERS saying “I love JK Rowling” were not a “dog whistle” for transphobia, a university professor has told an employment tribunal. Deirdre O’neill and Michael Wayne are suing the University and College Union (UCU) after its Edinburgh branch said their film Adult Human Female was an attack on transgender identity. The film challenges trans rights claims and provoked protests when they tried to show it at the University of Edinburgh, the tribunal heard. The academics said this was unlawful discrimination by the UCU against their belief that there are only two sexes. Yesterday, the tribunal heard that the film screening took place amid online reports about the discovery of “transphobic” stickers on the campus, including some saying, “I love JK Rowling”. Rowling, 59, has outspoken views on gender issues that have seen her called transphobic by activists, which she has denied. Although it was accepted that Mr Wayne, a professor at Brunel University, may not have been aware of the stickers, he was asked if he believed they could be a “dog whistle”. He replied: “So you’re saying that the author JK Rowling is what?” Tom Brown, for the UCU, said: “Professor Wayne, are you saying that you don’t appreciate that JK Rowling is a very well-known proponent of gender critical views?” Mr Wayne replied: “Yes, but she’s not a transphobe in my opinion, you used the word ‘dog whistle’, the word ‘dog whistle’ is a reference to coded messages underneath something that is apparently innocuous. “So I can’t accept that this is a dog whistle because that would be implying that I believe JK Rowling is a transphobe. She’s gender critical, the two things are not the same.” Mr Wayne said the stickers were “clearly a statement”, but not transphobic. The tribunal also heard reports about other stickers on campus and Mr Brown asked: “Do you accept that the context to the showing of your film on the campus of Edinburgh University was stickers such as these being spotted on campus?” The academic responded: “If the respondent says that these stickers were on campus then I’m happy to accept that they were on campus, yes.” Mr Brown said: “If somebody was a trans member of staff or a trans student that being on the campus with stickers like this could have an impact on how somebody felt?” Mr Wayne replied: “It could have an impact on how they felt, yes.” Pressed if this could have had a negative impact, Mr Wayne added: “It’s possible, yes, that doesn’t mean to say the stickers were illegitimate.” Mr Wayne told the tribunal that the film was “not an attack on trans identities”. He said that attempts to stop it being screened were an “attack on academic freedom” and that it was not possible to express their beliefs “without being classified as transphobic”. UCU’S Edinburgh branch demanded the became aware of a planned screening of the film in December 2022, it demanded the event be cancelled and called the film transphobic, the tribunal was told. Protesters blocked the venue at the first screening and again when the event was rescheduled, it was said. It eventually went ahead in November 2023 with extra security. The UCU said its actions were in support of trans rights and denies discriminating against or harassing Ms O’neill and Mr Wayne, according to tribunal documents. The tribunal, which is being held remotely, continues. Article Name:Stickers saying ‘I love JK Rowling’ not transphobic, tribunal told Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Telegraph Reporter Start Page:7 End Page:7

Friday Total: 0

Saturday Total: 3

The Times [1]
Universities review trans policies after big fine Nicola Woolcock - Education Editor Universities are reviewing transgender equality policies after the University of Sussex was handed a record fine from the higher education regulator. Documents relating to the treatment of trans students and staff have been taken down or are being updated in the wake of the Office for Students (OfS) fining the University of Sussex for breaching free speech. Its investigation sprang from the treatment of Kathleen Stock, a former professor at the university, who was forced to resign after harassment over her views on sex and gender. She said many colleagues ostracised her or failed to speak up. After the fine of £585,000 was announced, Stock said that several other universities still held the same policies as Sussex. Arif Ahmed, the OfS’s director of free speech, said Sussex’s trans and nonbinary equality policy statement meant that students or staff wishing to express or discuss lawful views, including gender-critical views, could have been concerned about breaching that policy and facing potential disciplinary action. This policy required academies to “positively represent trans people and trans lives” in relevant course materials. Now several institutions appear to have reviewed their policies, according to Times Higher Education. One law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said it had held conversations with several institutions because of the decision. Smita Jamdar, its head of education, said: “The main theme is anxiety that institutions cannot be sure if they are compliant or not.” The University of Leeds has updated its website to say the institution’s trans equality policy is being reviewed in light of the OfS investigation. Its policy currently says that the university would contain material that positively represents trans people and their lives. The University of Essex appears to have removed a link on its website to a policy on supporting transgender and non-binary staff. Times Higher Education said that this appeared to be live until five days before the OfS report. A spokesman said that Essex kept “our policies and guidance under regular review as part of meeting our legal obligations and protecting freedom of speech within the law”. He added that it was reviewing some documentation as “part of our agreed review process”. Statements on the University of Exeter’s website related to trans inclusion are also under review. Baroness Smith of Malvern, the skills minister, recently told the House of Lords that the OfS would be writing to institutions in the wake of its findings to help them “understand their obligations”. Universities UK has called for clarity over whether policies that aim to prevent “abusive, bullying and harassing” material or speech would be seen as a breach of free speech duties. The OfS said it was “important to emphasise that none of this means providers cannot have policies which set out how they will protect students from harassment — indeed, our new harassment condition will require them to do so”.
Daily Mail [1]
Trans trouble Daily Mail5 Apr 2025 MY heroines of the week are the eight female nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital launching a legal battle with the NHS not to allow a trans colleague who ‘stared too long at their breasts and lingered in the changing rooms’ in female-only areas. They claim it breaches their human rights if they have to undress in front of someone born a man, whether or not he/they/she/them identifies as a female. Is that too much for any woman to ask?
Amanda Platell
Telegraph [1]
Way of the World Michael Deacon The Daily Telegraph - Saturday5 Apr 2025 What on earth has got into our ruling class these past two weeks? We’ve had the Prime Minister ordering every secondary school in the land to show its pupils Adolescence. We’ve had Newsnight asking teenage boys when they last cried. And we’ve had anti-terror police telling the nation’s parents to report their sons to Prevent if they catch them watching “misogynist videos online”. Listening to these people’s ever more hysterical raving, you’d think that the single greatest threat facing our country was “toxic masculinity”. It isn’t, of course. But then, that’s the very reason why middle-class liberals are so eagerly stoking this moral panic. They want us to talk about fashionable Netflix dramas, “incels” and Andrew Tate in order to stop us talking about certain problems that are far worse. For all their ostensible anxiety about “toxic masculinity”, middle-class liberals are rarely happier than when they’re lecturing us about it – because it’s slap-bang in the middle of their comfort zone. Here is an issue where the villains almost invariably seem to be white and male, their crime is old-fashioned sexism, and the proposed solution is a crackdown on social media. All perennial favourite themes of middle-class liberals. If they were really worried about misogyny, you’d think they’d have had quite a lot more to say about grooming gangs – both when the scandal first emerged, and in January this year, when it briefly returned to the spotlight. Surely nothing could be more misogynistic than the mass rape of underage girls. Curiously, though, middleclass liberals appear to have forgotten about that particular subject. And so swiftly, too. If Sir Keir Starmer wished, he could order every secondary school to show Three Girls, a TV drama from 2017 about grooming gangs in Rochdale. Or, to highlight another form of misogyny, he could order them to show Adult Human Female, a documentary about how transgender ideology threatens women’s rights. Mind you, that would be tricky. Almost every time a women’s group has tried to screen Adult Human Female at a university, the event has had to be cancelled, after furious protests from trans activists. Still, good of them to help prove the producers’ point.

Sunday Total: 3

The Sunday Times [1]
‘Holistic’ care not hormones for children’s gender treatment on NHS Ben Spencer - Science Editor Camilla Kingdon, a paediatrician, says the subject has been “toxic”. No new prescriptions for cross-sex hormones have been issued to children since the controversial Tavistock gender clinic in London was replaced a year ago, NHS leaders have said. The new NHS children’s gender service prioritises “holistic” care for children with gender dysphoria rather than fast-tracking them on to hormones, an accusation that was levelled at the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) before it closed in March last year. The service, which is running at Great Ormond Street in London, Alder Hey in Liverpool and Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, has also prescribed no new puberty blockers, which are banned until a clinical trial starts later this year, pending ethical approval. It marks a fundamental switch in approach to the treatment of children with gender dysphoria, with doctors slowing down the route to prescribing hormonal drugs. Between April 2018 and December 2022, a fifth of patients referred to Gids were put on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or both. A year ago, a review of the Tavistock service by the paediatrician Baroness Cass criticised the “greater readiness” to use hormones for gender dysphoria despite “remarkably weak evidence” for their use. Her report said: “Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better.” Cross-sex hormones induce physical changes to allow patients to develop bodily features that align with a different gender identity. Those born male take oestrogen to develop breasts and redistribute fat and muscle mass; those born female take testosterone to deepen the voice, increase muscle mass and develop facial and body hair. Children prescribed the drugs at the Tavistock are continuing to receive their prescriptions. James Palmer, NHS England’s national medical director for specialised services, stressed that the door for the new prescription of cross-sex hormones was still open. “There may be a circumstance where it is important for care,” he said. “The services need the option of taking someone into masculinising or feminising hormones, if that really is the most important thing to be done. But the services have not identified an individual yet for whom it would be a really important bit of their care pathway.” If doctors decide there is a case for hormones to be prescribed, the decision must be agreed by a national multidisciplinary team of experts, chaired by Camilla Kingdon, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. She said the new service was about more than hormones. “This is not just about endocrinology. It’s about a holistic assessment of a child or young person within the context of their family. “That means very detailed assessments looking at the child’s wider physical health, mental health, thinking about the child in the context of their school and so on. It involves psychologists, psychiatrists, paediatricians, clinical nurse specialists, speech therapists, occupational therapists.” Recruitment has begun to open a fourth gender centre at Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, with eight planned across the country, each seeing 25 new child patients a month. Kingdon, who also chairs the provider network of new NHS gender clinics, said finding staff has been a struggle. “That’s due to the politicised and sometimes toxic nature of this topic,” she said. “It’s not necessarily the sort of environment that has people queueing up to work in it.” Palmer said a particular challenge had been navigating “a hugely divided lobby of stakeholders”, adding: “There’s the very liberal end of the spectrum that think [we should focus purely] on access to a transitional arrangement. At the other end, people say NHS resources should not be spent on this area at all.” Great Ormond Street and Alder Hey children’s gender services opened in June and Bristol started seeing patients in November. So far, 250 children have been seen, with a waiting list of 6,000 that is coming down after peaking in February. “When we started, we had some individuals waiting for more than six years to be seen,” Palmer said. “By the summer, if our maths is correct, no one will be waiting for more than four years to be seen, but it will take another three or four years to get to ... something much more manageable.”
Mail on Sunday [1]
Now nurse who called race-slur trans paedophile Mr is suspended – and marched out of hospital Tory leader Kemi condemns the ‘crazy treatment’ of whistleblower The Mail on Sunday6 Apr 2025By Ian Gallagher and Glen Owen A SENIOR nurse who addressed a transgender paedophile as ‘Mister’ has been suspended after speaking to The Mail on Sunday. Jennifer Melle, 40, was previously investigated and disciplined by NHS bosses despite being called the N-word three times by the patient, a convicted sex offender, who lunged at her. Now, after a four-minute meeting with a manager last week, she was suspended, ordered to collect her belongings and escorted out of St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey, in tears. Last night Tory leader Kemi Badenoch described Ms Melle’s treatment as ‘completely crazy’. She said: ‘She has my full support. It’s time the Government pulls its finger out and intervenes to make it clear no one should be punished at work for stating biological reality to paedophiles.’ Ugandan-born Ms Melle, from Croydon, South London, spoke to this newspaper last month about her ordeal. She said that in response to being called ‘he’ rather than ‘she’, the paedophile, known as Patient X, flew into a rage and left her fearing for her safety. The nurse has now been told she faces investigation over a ‘potential breach’ of patient information. Ms Melle told the MoS: ‘I am devastated to have been suspended just for whistleblowing. Despite being the one placed at risk, I am the one being punished. The message I have received is clear: I am expected to tolerate racism, deny biological reality and suppress my deeply held Christian beliefs.’ After her story was published, Ms Melle was praised by colleagues. ‘I thought that I was going to be attacked’ They told her of their own encounters with Patient X, who turned up last year from a high-security men’s prison to receive treatment for a urinary problem. During the evening shift, a colleague told Ms Melle the patient wanted to self-discharge and a doctor was called for guidance. Ms Melle spoke to the doctor on the phone outside the patient’s room, during which she referred to the patient as ‘Mister’ and ‘he’. She said she was discussing a catheter for a male, adding: ‘This was a medical scenario that required accurate terminology.’ Overhearing, the patient took issue with the male pronoun. The nurse replied she was ‘sorry I cannot refer to you as “her” or “she”, as it’s against my faith’. The patient began to verbally abuse the nurse, saying: ‘Imagine if I called you n ***** ? How about I call you n ***** ? Yes, black n ***** .’ Ms Melle said: ‘It was terrifying. I’d never been called that word. I thought I was going to be attacked.’ But it was Ms Melle who was punished by the hospital with a final warning and a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Now she is filing a legal claim against the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches. Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Ms Melle, said: ‘This is blatant, unlawful victimisation. Jennifer’s decision to speak out about her treatment is a legally protected act under the Equality Act. ‘The NHS has become so entrenched in transgender ideology that it is willing to side with a man brought in from prison in chains – who was shouting racist abuse – over a Christian nurse. We call on Health Secretary Wes Streeting to intervene.’ A spokesman for Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust said: ‘We expect all members of staff to follow professional standards – this includes maintaining confidentiality for any patients in their care at all times.’ Article Name:Now nurse who called race-slur trans paedophile Mr is suspended – and marched out of hospital Publication:The Mail on Sunday Author:By Ian Gallagher and Glen Owen Start Page:15 End Page:15
Sunday Telegraph [1]
Schoolchildren being taught that Joan of Arc was non-binary Claim about medieval French heroine in English language anthology branded ‘insulting’ The Sunday Telegraph6 Apr 2025By Tim Sigsworth The claim that Joan of Arc, below, was non-binary, was made in the biography of drag queen Amrou al Kadhi, right JOAN OF ARC was non-binary, secondary school pupils are being taught. Lesson plans produced for English language students aged between 11 and 14 include the claim about the medieval French heroine. The Maid of Orleans is the patron saint of France and fought against the English during the Hundred Years’ War. The Who We Are anthology published by Collins, which is made up of “representative and inclusive contemporary texts”, makes the claim in a lesson plan about a drag queen’s biography. It reads: “Joan of Arc (1412-31) is today considered by some to have been non-binary.” The knight cropped her hair in the male fashion and wore men’s clothes, which formed part of the heresy case against her for which she was burned at the stake in 1431. But she never claimed to not be female and also did not adopt the non-binary gender identity, which only emerged in the late 20th century. Prof Robert Tombs, professor emeritus of French history at the University of Cambridge, branded the claim Joan of Arc was non-binary as “insulting”. “Joan of Arc fought as a woman and died as a woman,” he told The Sunday Telegraph. “To call her something else is insulting to her and indirectly to all women who are brave enough to risk their lives for their beliefs – as if women are incapable of heroism.” Carolyn Brown, a retired psychologist now working with the Women’s Rights Network, said: “This is yet another ridiculous example of attempting to rewrite history and erase strong, rebellious female characters from our past. “It’s insulting to suggest that non-conforming women are not women. Non-binary is a nonsense term – indeed the Supreme Court in the UK recently ruled against including it as an option on passports. “It’s also another example of the junk science of queer theory being visited on children. It’s unhelpful psychologically to children’s development and is likely to cause confusion and anxiety.” It is not the first time Joan of Arc has been dubbed non-binary. In 2022, the Globe Theatre put on the play I, Joan, which gave her the pronouns “they/ them” instead of “she/her”. The claim was made in the Collins anthology as part of a lesson plan designed around Life as a Unicorn – the biography of drag queen Amrou al-Kadhi. The plan reads: “To provide some useful context, teachers may explain to students that there are references to non-binary people in ancient Mesopotamia (4,000 years ago); that in India and Pakistan, ‘hijra’ is a legally recognised third gender (hijra are usually assigned male at birth but present female); and that Joan of Arc (1412-31) is today considered by some to have been non-binary. “These historical and global references may prepare students unfamiliar with LGBTQ+ identities to understand the content of the extract”. One teacher said the lesson plan – used by state schools – made “an absolute mockery of the profession”. “In schools today there is simply far too much identity-first woke reading materials being foisted on pupils at the expense of established classics like [To Kill a] Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men. We should also not lose sight of the fact that there are cohorts of teenagers vulnerable to reality-denying nonsense like this when it is presented earnestly.” Collins was approached for comment. Article Name:Schoolchildren being taught that Joan of Arc was non-binary Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Tim Sigsworth Start Page:5 End Page:5

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]><![CDATA[Exclusive: Sinn Féin councillors on puberty blocker ban support & Pride bans]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/exclusive-sinn-fein-councillors-onhttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/exclusive-sinn-fein-councillors-onMon, 31 Mar 2025 16:11:47 GMTOn Friday, I travelled for an hour with three others for what was meant to be a meeting with a Sinn Fein MLA. She failed to show, without letting us know, but what was a frustrating start turned into a productive meeting with two Sinn Fein councillors.

Kathleen McGurk, a Sinn Féin councillor for East Derry and Niamh Archibald, a councillor for Coleraine joined us to discuss the party’s position on the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision to ban puberty blockers and the resulting ban of political parties by Prides across Northern Ireland.

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Support The Trans Agenda via Paypal

The meeting opened with McGurk stating that she did not believe a Pride ban was the best way forward, and she was keen to emphasise Sinn Féin’s long-standing support for the LGBTQ+ community. That support is not in question. The party was backing Pride long before it was fashionable; I remember them supporting decades ago, standing beside us when others would not. Coming from the ‘other side,’ where ‘our’ politicians led the ‘Save Ulster from Sodomy’ campaign, Sinn Fein’s support stuck with me and went a long way to shifting my politics significantly when I was a lot younger.

No one is accusing Sinn Féin of being transphobic. But they have found themselves used as pawns in a transphobic game orchestrated by the UK government, with the lives of trans young people as collateral. I suspect that accusation may sting just as much.

They made clear early on that they had acted on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. As I said after meeting Alliance, it is not unreasonable for political parties to trust the Chief Medical Officer’s expertise. The issue is how compromised that advice has become - and how it is being used by Westminster to undermine healthcare for Irish children.

I asked if they were aware of this context - that they were being used by the English to harm Irish kids. I knew it was a sentiment that would register, and it did. It was a point I returned to.

Over the course of a meeting that ran more than an hour, we attempted to change their understanding of the situation. Others in the room spoke with painful precision about the reality for trans children in Northern Ireland. I felt, at moments, like a conspiracy theorist and said as much, as I asked whether they were aware of Wes Streeting’s connections to Christian Concern, the organisation behind the Darlington nurses and multiple ongoing employment tribunals across the UK. They were not. I asked if they knew about the Heritage Foundation and its links to the anti-trans agenda being pushed by Donald Trump in the United States. Again, they did not. There was more.

There is always more.

We listed the countries that had conducted their own independent versions of the Cass Review and came to conclusions diametrically opposed to those reached in England. We pointed out that many of the most harmful policies now being implemented are not even recommended by the Cass Review itself. We highlighted not just the flawed science but the explicit political motivations behind it, motivations that were called out in some of those international reports.

The Sinn Féin councillors did not know any of this. But, unlike the Alliance Party, they did not pretend otherwise. They did not obfuscate or condescend. They listened, took extensive notes, and asked questions.

Crucially, they began to consider what they might actually do.

The Chief Medical Officer’s advice has provided political cover for those looking for it. But where Alliance refused to acknowledge any gaps in their knowledge, the Sinn Féin councillors we met appeared genuinely unaware of the origins and implications of that advice. Naivety? Absolutely. But, at least in this case, little more.

Many have speculated that Sinn Féin was offered incentives or faced threats from Westminster, the latter a claim allegedly made by a party MLA in a meeting with Sinn Féin’s LGBTQ+ wing following the ban. When this was put to the councillors, it was not denied. Perhaps they did not hear the question.

Politicians are skilled in managing optics and discourse; I am not. But when I walked out of that meeting, I felt that we might have reached someone. Where the meeting with Alliance left me furious, here, for the first time, there was the faint but unmistakable sense that someone with influence was listening. Not performing, not placating, but genuinely listening.

They seemed truly pained by being excluded from Pride. I believe, after this conversation, they better understood why that decision had to be made.

The meeting had been organised by Causeway Pride, the first Pride to ban Executive parties. Riley McCahon, chairperson, told me afterwards, “I was pleasantly surprised by our meeting with Sinn Fein. Going in, I was expecting a typical experience where I would be gaslit or spoken over, as we've often encountered in the past. I had low expectations due to the history of being dismissed or ignored. However, I was happy to find that the councillors present were quite the opposite. They were engaged, attentive, and genuinely willing to listen to our concerns. Although I was disappointed that the MLA didn't show up as expected, the councillors who did attend showed a level of commitment and openness that I didn't anticipate.

“They asked thoughtful questions and appeared invested in understanding the issue at hand. I left the meeting feeling surprisingly optimistic and confident that we might actually have a chance to work collaboratively with this party. With the right approach, it seems possible that we could make meaningful progress towards dismantling this cruel and inhumane ban. For the first time in a while, I feel like our voices are being heard by an executive party, and that gives me hope that change could be on the horizon.”

Faolán Hook, who was also present, felt similarly, “There is still a long way to go before the blocker ban is repealed, but our meeting with Sinn Fein on Friday was a positive start and gave me a bit of hope that there are people in the executive parties who want to fight this ban.

“Due to how the Stormont Executive functions, I have a feeling that things won't be smooth sailing as these things have been before, but I'm hopeful that some resolution can be reached even if it's going to take a lot of work and persistence.

“All we want is for those in power to listen to the community and cast aside misinformation peddled by a transphobic state so the youth in our community can grow up to be happy trans adults.”

Gwen Montgomery of Mams4TransNI, who had driven us all to Coleraine, said it had been ‘rude’ of the MLA to cancel without letting us know before leaving Belfast, but otherwise, “I felt substantially more positive after that meeting with Sinn Fein than either meeting with the Alliance leader and deputy leader. They were willing to listen and learn and that’s a huge start.”

Among the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive that backed the ban on puberty blockers, Sinn Féin is the only one for whom I still have hope. They don’t need to issue a full mea culpa, they only need to admit that they were lied to and that, in good faith, they made a mistake.

Will they ever say that? I don’t know.

But I believe they are open to considering it. And in the political landscape we currently inhabit, that might be the most we can ask for.

The others won’t even do that.

Support The Trans Agenda via Paypal

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: The papers declare JK Rowling's 'triumph' over trans people]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-papers-declarehttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-the-papers-declareSun, 30 Mar 2025 10:49:40 GMTThe Trans Agenda

[30 March 2025]

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

Donate to The Trans Agenda via Paypal

Hello, and welcome back. It would have been nice to return from a few days by the sea to a quiet news cycle, but the headlines have been anything but. Chief among them is the extraordinary ruling by the Office for Students, which issued a record-breaking fine against the University of Sussex, for the offence of trying to protect trans people.

At the centre of it all, inevitably, is Kathleen Stock. Her silenced face dominated the papers, and she rounded the week off demonstrating her lack of self-awareness and typical arrogance by throwing down a public challenge to those who oppose her. She wants to know what we all think now. Sadly, she will never put herself in a position where she might actually have to hear it.

Times Exclusive interview: Kathleen Stock: I'd love to know what those protesting against me think now
Online headline different to print edition which can be seen below in PAPER REVIEW

Meanwhile, the fallout from the Sullivan Review continues to gather pace. For anyone still unclear about the motivations behind that report, Alice Sullivan helpfully used the pages of the Sunday Telegraph to clarify. In large type, she declared Trump right about trans people.

It’s uncomfortable to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues The data scientist and author of a review on sex and gender talks to Judith Woods about academic groupthink, the ideological capture of the NHS, and Wes Streeting’s response The Sunday Telegraph30 Mar 2025Alice Sullivan

Oh, and in case you missed it, JK Rowling has defeated trans people. I am currently writing this from a dungeon somewhere near a castle in Scotland, probably in a cell close to your own where you are reading it right now.

Telegraph Zoe Strimpel This is the year of JK Rowling's triumph and it is such a joy to watch

UK & IRELAND NEWS

University of Sussex fined for protecting trans people

  • Kathleen Stock’s former university, that of Sussex, has been fined an astonishing £585,000 by the Office for Students (a political body) for the crime of having policies that protect trans people from harmful speech.

    This is the story that dominates the papers.

    The fine stems from the university’s handling of Stock’s resignation in 2021, when students peacefully protested her anti-trans views and she couldn’t handle it. Despite Stock facing no legal repercussions for her comments and alleged harassment, the OfS found that the university’s transgender inclusion policy created a “chilling effect” on others’ ability to express dissenting views. Stock never seemed to have any problem saying what she wanted. Her issue came when others exercised their freedom of speech to protest her comments.

    This ruling, celebrated by anti-trans campaigners, is a worrying development for trans people and universities in general. It suggests that creating safe, inclusive environments for trans students and staff may now be framed as a violation of so-called “free speech.” As universities are pressured to accommodate views that undermine trans people’s existence, protections against discrimination are being weakened. The fine sends a clear signal: institutional support for trans inclusion could now carry a devastating financial penalty in addition to the social ones already frequently applied.

    The university plans to appeal the ruling that was shamefully given the full backing of Labour’s Education and Women’s and Equalities Secretary Bridget Phillipson.

Trans patients 'terrified' as UK GPs withdraw from prescribing HRT [Pink News]

  • Dozens of UK GPs have stopped prescribing hormone replacement therapy to trans patients, citing lack of expertise and support. One Sheffield surgery told patients the work was “outside of our expertise,” while others in the East Midlands followed suit. To be clear, they are not allowed to do this and have not been officially instructed to. If this happens to you, here is some information that can help.

NHS suspends gender marker updates for under-18s after Sullivan review [Philippa East]

  • NHS England has suspended the ability to update gender markers for under-18s following the Sullivan Review, which claimed safeguarding risks without citing evidence. The PCSE portal has removed access to relevant forms, also affecting adoption updates. The review lacks objective data and misrepresents risks to justify a politically motivated policy that harms trans youth and erodes existing healthcare processes for adults.

    The ‘impartial’ Sullivan has a full page in this week’s Sunday Telegraph, the headline of which is “It’s uncomfortable to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues.” See PAPER REVIEW for more.

NHS BDD expert’s link to anti-trans conference raises concerns for trans teens [Trans Safety Network]

  • Dr Amita Jassi, head of the NHS’s sole youth Body Dysmorphic Disorder service, joined a panel at an event hosted by the anti-trans Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, alongside prominent anti-trans activists. Her recent paper proposing criteria to “differentiate” BDD and gender dysphoria is raising fears the NHS may be developing new clinical tools to pathologise trans youth under the guise of “care”.

LGB Alliance use offices owned by man helping Russia

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

AROUND THE WORLD

Ireland updates US travel advice, warns transgender citizens to check entry requirements [Newsweek]

  • Ireland has updated its travel guidance for the United States, cautioning transgender citizens to check specific entry rules due to recent US policy changes. The Department of Foreign Affairs advises those with an “X” gender marker or a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth to contact the US Embassy in Dublin before travelling. The move follows similar warnings from the UK, Finland, Denmark and Germany.

US visa rule targeting trans travellers sparks legal and logistical alarm [JDSUPRA]

  • A new directive requires US visa applicants to declare their sex assigned at birth, granting consular staff wide discretion to deny applications. Though framed around transgender athletes, its vague scope could affect business, academic, and tourist visas. Legal experts warn of likely challenges on discrimination and human rights grounds.

Trump administration targets California over trans student protections [Mira Lazine]

  • The Trump administration has launched an investigation threatening to cut California school funding over AB 1955, a law protecting trans students from forced outing. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon claims it violates parental rights, despite prior court rulings upholding it.

Poll shows widespread public rejection of anti-trans federal policies [Erin Reed]

  • A new Data for Progress poll shows strong public opposition to the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-trans agenda, that includes censorship, healthcare bans, and a military purge. 52% oppose removing LGBTQ+ health data, and 61% reject prosecuting teachers who support trans students. Majorities also support healthcare for trans youth and oppose rewriting LGBTQ+ history. Even on sports, most favour local control over federal bans.

Montana bathroom ban becomes law

Transgender how do you know? by H Lee Hurley

MEDIA

Gay society faces greatest danger under Trump, warns Russell T Davies [Guardian]

  • Russell T Davies warns LGBTQ+ communities face unprecedented danger under Donald Trump, citing rising hostility and policy rollbacks. Speaking at the Gaydio Pride Awards, the Queer as Folk creator likened the threat to a “rising darkness,” calling out Trump and Elon Musk for fuelling hate and controlling public discourse.

    Davies urged defiance, vowing: “If we have to be rebels in basements again, that’s what we’ll become.”

Project 2025 Trump’s acts beyond ‘wildest dreams’ [Guardian]

Project 2025 Trump’s acts beyond ‘wildest dreams’ The Guardian18 Mar 2025Martin Pengelly Washington Paul Dans was Project 2025 director for the rightwing Heritage Foundation The director of Project 2025, a rightwing plan to dismantle the federal government which the Democrats warned about last year, forcing Donald Trump to try to disown it, has said the president’s actions in power have proved “way beyond my wildest dreams”. Paul Dans was director of Project 2025 for the Heritage Foundation, a hard-right group that has produced such policy plans for four decades. The plan alarmed progressives with its advocacy of slashing government staffing and budgets and attacking protections for LGBTQ+ Americans as well as scrapping efforts to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) throughout government, attempts to tackle the climate crisis and more. Democratic attacks proved effective enough for Trump to claim he had “nothing to do” with the project. Last July, as the Trump campaign scrambled to limit damage, Dans was forced out of his Heritage role. Now back in power, the president and his chief donor and ally, the billionaire Elon Musk, have mounted an assault on the federal government that has already led to thousands of firings, a bonfire of climate regulations, attacks on DEI initiatives real and imagined, and much more. “It’s actually way beyond my wildest dreams,” Dans told Politico. “It’s not going to be the easiest road to hoe going forward. The deep state is going to get its breath back here, but the way that they’ve been able to move and kind of upset the orthodoxy, and at the same time really capture the imagination of the people, I think portends a great four years.” According to rightwing activists, the “deep state” is a permanent government of bureaucrats and operatives that exists to thwart Trump. Dans, who now works as a lawyer and government relations consultant, told Politico he was “not saying” Trump’s agenda and Project 2025 were “one and the same. I’m saying that directionally, they have a lot in common … We had hoped, those of us who worked [on] Project 2025, the next conservative president would seize the day, but Trump is seizing every minute of every hour. I’m not sure you’d be able to implement Project 2025 without [his] ability to bring people together and Elon Musk’s ability to focus the direction of the work.” Article Name:Project 2025 Trump’s acts beyond ‘wildest dreams’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Martin Pengelly Washington Start Page:25 End Page:25

Ofcom opens investigation into GB News after 71,000+ complaints because of homophobic slur

  • Ofcom has launched a formal investigation into GB News after the right-wing channel aired a segment suggesting that the LGBT+ community included paedophiles. The remarks, made by presenter Josh Howie on Headliners, sparked widespread outrage and prompted a wave of complaints, with over 71,000 signatures submitted by the Good Law Project calling for regulatory action.

    Despite the clear breach of broadcasting standards, GB News boss Angelos Frangopoulos has attempted to frame the backlash as a “co-ordinated” attack by “far-left pressure groups,” dismissing concerns as an assault on “free speech.” In reality, watchdogs and advocacy groups, including Stop Funding Hate, are right to highlight that the channel has long been a platform for hate speech and misinformation, frequently pushing narratives designed to stir division.

SPORT

SHOT - Seb Coe humiliated in bid to become IOC President

  • Despite being touted as the favourite by the UK media, Coe lost to Kirsty Coventry 48-9. The election, which was expected to last five rounds of voting, was concluded in the first. Coventry becomes the first woman to lead the IOC, something the right wing papers were furious about because how can she, as a woman, be expected to know how to protect women?

    While Coventry had made noises towards the anti-trans crowd, her heart never really seemed into it and has already begun walking back on what she said. Still, with the next Olympics set to be held in LA, a ban on trans women seems inevitable, no matter her wishes.

    The BBC initially reported that Coe had won the election, publishing an article headlined “King Charles congratulates Coe on his election as IOC president” before swiftly deleting.

CHASER - World Athletics to introduce mandatory sex testing for women only [Sky News]

  • All female athletes will undergo mandatory biological sex verification, including swabs or blood tests, World Athletics confirmed. Sebastian Coe, speaking less than a week after his IOC election humiliation, says the policy protects fairness in women’s sport, but he’s lying. It revives outdated, discriminatory practices and will lead to invasive exams ahead of the 2028 Olympics. There is zero chance that Coe is unaware of this.

First ever study disproves claims of unfair advantage in DSD athletes [Kirsti Miller]

  • More than 15 years after Caster Semenya was targeted by World Athletics, a new study by Gollish et al. (2025) has found no evidence that women with differences in sex development (DSD) have a performance advantage over other female athletes. The researchers analysed performances from the Paris 2024 Olympics and concluded, as Kirsti Miller puts it: “They run like girls.”

Trump does not scare me, says Khelif

  • Imane Khelif has vowed to defend her Olympic boxing title at Los Angeles 2028 despite Donald Trump’s attempts to ban her. The Algerian, who won gold in Paris amid Russian propaganda, dismissed Trump’s policy targeting trans athletes, stating, “I am not transgender. This does not concern me, and it does not intimidate me.” She revealed the intense scrutiny had deeply affected her and her family but remains determined to claim a second gold medal.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Hungary bans Budapest Pride, plans AI surveillance of attendees [S Baum]

  • Hungary has banned its annual Pride parade and plans to use AI surveillance, facial recognition, and automatic fines to target organisers and attendees. Passed swiftly by Parliament under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the new law expands child protection rules to outlaw events seen to be promoting LGBT identities to minors. Despite the crackdown, Budapest Pride organisers vow to proceed, calling the ban “fascism.”

Morning-after pill to be free at pharmacies in England [BBC]

  • Women in England will be able to get the morning-after pill for free at pharmacies later this year, ending postcode inequalities and reducing pressure on GP services.

Lisa Nandy to be removed from Labour cabinet

  • It is widely expected that Lisa Nandy will lose the Culture, Media and Sport brief that she was only given because Thangam Debbonaire was too hateful to win her election. They are claiming she doesn’t work hard enough and is only interested in the ‘sport’ section of her job. Morgan McSweeney is, as usual, believed to be behind the impending ousting, with Nandy seen as being ‘too left’. To McSweeney, David Cameron is ‘too left’.

    Bridget Phillipson, who has shown herself this week to be anti-trans, is also expected to be replaced.

    Keir Starmer continues to be accused of having a problem with women. It is hard to see how these moves will help with that perception.

Reform UK appoints man who called Hitler ‘brilliant’ as vetting chief [Guardian]

  • Jack Aaron, a former Reform UK candidate who once praised Hitler’s ability to “inspire people into action,” has been appointed head of the party’s candidate vetting process. Aaron, who also described Bashar al-Assad as “gentle by nature” and defended Vladimir Putin’s use of force in Ukraine, will now be responsible for reviewing and advising on prospective candidates’ social media activity.

    Reform UK has defended Aaron, highlighting his Jewish heritage and family history. Aaron previously stood by many of his comments, arguing they were made within a psychological framework rather than as endorsements.

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here.

Monday 31 March

  • Amanda Pritchard steps down as NHS England CEO

  • Verdict due for France’s Marine Le Pen, who is accused of embezzlement.

Tuesday 1 April

  • 2.30pm+ House of Lords, oral questions, Office for Students: Sussex University fine for breach of free speech obligations

  • 4.30pm, Westminster Hall debate, Relationship education in schools

  • Minimum wage increase takes effect

  • Election in Wisconsin Supreme Court race where Elon Musk is bribing voters

  • Report: Forbes World’s Billionaires listing

Wednesday 2 April

  • Prime Minister’s Questions, House of Commons, 12pm

Thursday 3 April

Friday 4 April

  • Five years ago: Keir Starmer became Labour leader on a manifesto of lies

Saturday 5 April

Sunday6 April

  • Non-dom tax status abolished

The House of Lords goes into recess until 22 April.

THE PAPERS

As I was away last weekend, we have two weeks to catch up and they were a busy two weeks.

17 March - 23 March saw 24 articles while 24 March - 30 March had 29, making it the third busiest week of 2025.

The Telegraph, of course, leads the way with 25 in total across the two weeks (13 & 12). The Times had 13 (6 & 7), the Mail 11 (4 & 7) and the Guardian/Observer four (1 & 3).

In 2025, here have been two articles in the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Guardian (out of 178) that you could call 'positive' when it comes to trans people and both have featured the mother of a dead trans kid.

Here are the headlines from the last two weeks:

  • Girls in care should share with trans boys, says Scots watchdog

  • Lib Dems told to stop harassing biological women and Christians

  • NHS Trust let trans doctor use femal changing room without asking regulator

  • Way of the world (trans babies)

  • Integrity of sport comes first - we must protect the female category

  • Parents asked if newborn identifies as transgender, gay or ‘unsure’

  • Detective investigated for ‘Terf’ suffragette sticker

  • "Criminals free to pick their own gender

  • Labour will not force police to record biological sex despite report’s findings"

  • Hogwarts and all – JK Rowling takes trans swipe at Potter stars

  • BIOLOGICAL SEX ERASED FROM OFFICIAL DATA Review finds ‘sex’ replaced by ‘gender’ in health & crime records

  • The Brigitte Macron conspiracy theory - False rumours about the French first lady’s gender are being circulated by Trump-supporting commentators. By Marianka Swain

  • Why is Starmer still giving in to a tiny minority of gender terrorists?

  • NHS ban on trans children altering records

  • Oxford tweaks Latin event to please persona non binary

  • Historic ceremony to use gender-neutral language for first time in 800 years in push for inclusivity"

  • Degrees of gender

  • NHS told not to change children’s gender data

  • Wokery costs lives

  • End to the changing of children’s gender on NHS medical records

  • Flight from Reality - The Sullivan Review has exposed the dangers of lost or absent data on biological sex

  • Scientist pushed out over gender beliefs - Porton Down expert said he was treated as if he had been showing support for al-Qaeda, Fiona Hamilton writes

  • Confusion over sex made years of data useless - Alice Sullivan has revealed how far gender politics led both state and private sectors astray when recording statistics

  • The failure to accurately record biological sex harms us all

  • Nurse branded danger to public – for calling racist transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ - so guess who was investigated by the NHS and labelled a danger to the public"

  • Nurse branded ‘danger to public’ for calling trans paedophile ‘Mr’

  • Brianna Ghey’s mother urges under-16s ban on social media

  • Gender-neutral raccoon causes Cbeebies row - Campaigners say use of ‘their’ pronoun for cartoon will ‘confuse’ audience still learning to speak"

  • Transgender prisoner who assaulted female guard ‘should have been removed’

  • Whatever happened to the England of Fair Play?

  • As NHS nurse is punished for misgendering a paedophile"

  • The real reason a THIRD of autistic young women now identify as trans or non-binary By a neuroscientist who’s met many of them

  • Woke institutions retreating on trans issues should apologise

  • Use clean blade to self-harm, trans charity tells children

  • Cheek swabs adopted to ‘protect female category’

  • Transgender row university handed £585k free speech fine

  • Parents shouldn’t have to explain ‘gender identity’ to five-year-olds

  • Scots NHS men’s lavatories given ‘period product bins’

  • Record fine for university that failed to protect the free speech of trans critics

  • Our 262,000 trans figure in the latest census was wrong, ONS finally admits

  • Don’t rely on census for trans data, ONS advises

  • Universities failing on free speech are warned of seven-figure fines

  • Professor endured smears and ostracism in ‘medieval’ ordeal

  • Lesson Not Learnt - Sussex University is still failing to atone for its mistreatment of Kathleen Stock

  • How dim-witted!

  • Academic in free speech row gives her withering verdict on trans policies stifling UK’s universities"

  • Just as an academic hounded out of her job wins a victory for free speech, I fear Labour’s planning to wreck a new law that would protect heroes like her

  • University taking legal action over free speech fine

  • A mother’s strength after an unbearable loss

  • Parent screams ‘you’re a boy’ at U12 girl - Father goes on pitch to abuse rumoured transgender player ‘Disgraceful’ conduct earns 18-match ban from touchline"

  • The bill for denying sex is real keeps rising - Settling with public servants bullied out of jobs is a double whammy — we paid for this brainwashing in the first place

  • This is the year of JK Rowling’s triumph and it is such a joy to watch

  • GPs stand their ground over prescribing trans hormones

  • It’s uncomfortable to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues Alice Sullivan scientist and author of a review on sex and gender talks to Judith Woods about academic groupthink, the ideological capture of the NHS, and Wes Streeting’s response.

  • A uni protest that ended in disaster

In all, there were 44 different bylines on these articles.

Whose bylines were on all these articles? Alex Shulman, anon (2), Anya Fielding, Ben Cole, Benedict Smith, Carol Midgley, comment (3), Craig Simpson, Daily Telegraph Reporter, Daniel Martin (2), Dominic Penna, Eleanor Harding (2), Fiona Hamilton, Geraldine Scott, Hayley Dixon, Ian Gallagher, India McTaggart, Janice Turner, Jonathan Ames, Judith Woods (2), Liz Harris, Marianka Swain, Mark Brown, Mark Macaskill (3), Matt Goodwin, Michael Deacon (2), Michael Searles, Natasha Leake, Nicola Woolcock (2), Prof Alice Sullivan, Professor Gina Rippon, Richard Adams, Richard Littlejohn, Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Sam Merrriman (3), Sanchez Manning, Sarah Ditum, Sean Ingle, Seb Coe, Shaun Wooller, Simon Johnson (2), Sonia Sodha, Suzanne Moore, Zoe Strimpel

Quoted, mentioned or featured this week: Andrea Williams (2), Ash Regan, Candace Owens, Christian Legal Centre (2), Darlington Nurses, Dr Kath Murray, Fair Play for Women, Fiona McAnena, For Women Scotland (2), Helen Joyce (2), Jennifer Melle (4), JK Rowling (2), Kathleen Stock (9), Keira Bell, Kemi Badenoch, Lord Seb Coe, Maya Forstater (3), Melanie Newman, Mike Dixon, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, Natalie Bird, Peter Wilkins (2), Prof Alice Sullivan (10), Republican State Senator Holly Schepisi, Royal College of GPs, Sandie Peggie (4), Sex Matters (5), Shelley Charlesworth, Susan Smith (2), Transgender Trend, Tucker Carlson, Wes Streeting (2)

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 17 March - 30 March

17 Monday Total: 1

Telegraph [1]
Girls in care should share with trans boys, says Scots watchdog The Daily Telegraph17 Mar 2025By Mark Macaskill GIRLS in care should share a bedroom with boys who think they are transgender, according to guidance published by Scotland’s care watchdog. The advice, issued by the Care Inspectorate, said that “if a transgender young person wants to share a room with other young people who share their gender identity, they should be able to do so as long as the rights of, and risks to, all those involved are considered and respected”. Its guidance, which was published in the wake of last year’s Cass Review, also says that transgender children “should not be made to use the toilet or bedroom of their sex assigned at birth”. It adds: “The provision of gendered facilities such as toilets is social convention. There is no law in Scotland about this.” Women’s rights activists have accused the watchdog of being “grossly negligent” amid a fierce debate on the provision of single-sex spaces in Scotland – namely, that men who self-identify as women can gain access to women’s changing rooms and toilets. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, called the Care Inspectorate’s guidance “a terrifying failure of the state’s duty to protect some of Scotland’s most vulnerable young people”. “This policy is grossly negligent, putting young people who deserve so much better at significant risk,” she told The Scottish Mail on Sunday. It also comes amid the tribunal of Sandie Peggie, a nurse who claims NHS Fife subjected her to bullying after she complained of a transwoman doctor in the female changing room. According to the Cass Review, there is a high presentation of children who have had adverse childhood experiences and those who are “looked after” among the transgender population. In light of those findings, the Care Inspectorate published updated guidance for care workers and accommodation providers in May 2024. It said it supports schools guidance issued by the Scottish Government in 2021 stating that a transgender youngster should not be made to use the lavatory or bedroom of their biological sex. Susan Smith, of campaign group For Women Scotland, said: “Various pieces of legislation do mandate single-sex toilet provisions. Care Inspectorate officials must be naive to the point of abject idiocy if they think gender identity will preclude children indulging in dangerous sexual behaviour. “Children’s human rights and physical safety matter: unless the Care Inspectorate wants another child abuse inquiry on its hands, it will stop deliberately putting children at risk.” Tess White, Scottish Conservative equalities spokesman, said: “It’s frankly ludicrous that Scotland’s care watchdog doesn’t recognise there are legal obligations to provide single-sex spaces.” A spokesman for the Care Inspectorate said: “It is for care services to decide on the appropriate provision of facilities to meet the individual needs, rights and wishes of those experiencing care.” Article Name:Girls in care should share with trans boys, says Scots watchdog Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Mark Macaskill Start Page:8 End Page:8
Telegraph can’t tell their boys from their girls. They mean ‘trans girls’ in this headline

18 Tuesday Total: 1

Telegraph [1]
NHS trust let trans doctor use female changing room without asking regulator The Daily Telegraph18 Mar 2025By Simon Johnson SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR AN NHS board gave a transgender doctor access to a female changing room without consulting regulators about laws that protect women’s safe spaces at work, The Telegraph can reveal. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said it had held no discussions with NHS Fife about the regulations that require employers to provide separate sex changing facilities. A Freedom of Information request confirmed the regulator had held no talks with the health board dating back to at least July 2023 about the the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. These state changing rooms and lavatories will not be suitable “unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety”. The next month, August 2023, Dr Beth Upton started work at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy. The medic was born male but self-identifies as a woman. Dr Upton told an employment tribunal that use of the female changing room was agreed with a supervisor. NHS Fife has accused Sandie Peggie, a nurse, of misconduct after she challenged the presence of Dr Upton in the women-only area. Dr Upton is understood not to have had a gender recognition certificate at the time. The tribunal heard the health board acted on the advice of an equalities officer rather than lawyers. The officer was said to have insisted Dr Upton had a “right” to access the changing room as the medic “identifies as a woman”. A spokesman for NHS Fife said it would be inappropriate to comment on the ongoing tribunal, adding that it was “committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and non-discriminatory environment”. Article Name:NHS trust let trans doctor use female changing room without asking regulator Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Simon Johnson SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR Start Page:9 End Page:9
Way of the World Michael Deacon The Daily Telegraph18 Mar 2025FOLLOW Michael Deacon on X @Michaelpdeacon read More at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion The next time someone blithely assures you that “woke is over” now Donald Trump is back, politely direct his or her attention to the following story. In the US state of New Jersey, hospitals have been giving new parents a questionnaire to fill in. And this questionnaire asks them to specify their newborn baby’s sexuality. Yes, you read that correctly. Holly Schepisi, a Republican member of the New Jersey Senate, has shared a photo of the questionnaire on her Facebook page, after getting her staff to confirm that it was real. And here, verbatim, is how the relevant question is phrased. “Which of the following best describes your baby? Lesbian or gay; straight or heterosexual; bisexual; self-describes (please specify); questioning/unsure.” No matter how many times I reread the quoted passage, I still can’t decide which aspect of it is the maddest. The idea that a newborn baby can be gay. The idea that parents might think their newborn baby is gay. The idea that a newborn baby can “self-describe” anything, let alone his or her sexual orientation. Or the idea that a newborn baby is “questioning” his or her sexual orientation – as if, while in the womb, the baby was convinced that he or she was heterosexual, but now, a couple of hours after being born, is starting to have second thoughts. Even if the baby does happen to be wrestling with such extraordinary notions, it’s unclear how he or she would convey his or her conclusions. Coming out to your parents is hard enough for grown adults. So goodness only knows how a preverbal child is meant to manage it. Or perhaps the parents are just expected to guess. (“Our two-day-old son has yet to discuss his sexuality with us. But we have noted his passion for interior design and musical theatre.”) For a moment, I wondered whether the questionnaire might actually be part of some ingenious sting operation by the FBI. Any time a grown man ticks a box suggesting he thinks that very small children have sexual preferences, undercover agents immediately leap out and arrest him. But no. It would appear that there is no such plan. In reality, the whole thing is probably just a wild misunderstanding. A spokesman for the healthcare provider behind the form said that asking such questions is now “required by New Jersey law” – after local politicians decreed that healthcare providers must collect detailed demographic data about all their patients, including sexual orientation. I suspect that these politicians didn’t have the sexual orientation of newborn babies in mind. None the less, this is how their law has been interpreted. Whatever the explanation, though, the farce doesn’t end there. Because the questionnaire doesn’t just ask about your baby’s sexuality. It also asks about your baby’s gender identity. Among the wide variety of possible answers listed on the form are “male”, “female”, “genderqueer” – and, rather curiously, “trans woman” and “trans man”. In the context, surely it should be “trans baby”. But then, if a man can identify as a woman and a woman as a man, I suppose there’s no reason why a baby shouldn’t identify as an adult. On the plus side, the spokesman for the healthcare provider did make clear that parents are entitled not to answer the questions, if they so wish. This must come as a relief not only to the parents, but also to hospital staff. After all, new parents tend to be irritable enough as it is, what with all the sleep deprivation and stress. Ask them whether their baby son is a lesbian, and God knows what they might do. From slashing foreign aid to cutting benefit payments, Sir Keir Starmer has recently adopted an unexpectedly conservative approach to public spending. I don’t know whether he’s looking for further ways to ease the burden on the taxpayer. But if he is, I have a suggestion for him. He should pay a visit to the Clink Prison Museum in London. There he will learn the history of the Clink, a gruesome medieval prison which was in use from 1144 to 1780. I happened to visit it at the weekend. And, among many other fascinating facts, I learnt that prisoners were required to pay for their incarceration out of their own pockets. They had to pay for their bedding, lighting, heating, food, water. They even had to pay for their fetters and chains to be attached to them. And then, at the end of their sentence, they had to pay once again to have the fetters and chains removed. No doubt some Labour MPS would be hesitant to adopt such a policy today. They might venture to suggest that, in the 21st century, it would seem a touch draconian, and liable to meet with a certain amount of resistance from human rights lawyers. All the same, the Prime Minister should at least try putting it to focus groups. Because I have a funny feeling that it would poll quite well. Article Name:Way of the World Michael Deacon Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:FOLLOW Michael Deacon on X @Michaelpdeacon read More at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion Start Page:16 End Page:16

19 Wednesday Total: 3

The Times [1]
Detective investigated for ‘Terf’ suffragette sticker Liz Harris, Jonathan Ames - Legal Editor A Scotland Yard detective was accused of misconduct after displaying a sticker in the colours of the suffragettes in order to show support for “gendercritical” officers. The phrase “Deeds not Words” was emblazoned on a laptop sticker in purple, green and white, the colours of the early 20th-century campaign for women to be given the vote. The unnamed detective constable was also accused of “deadnaming” a convicted trans bomb-maker during an internal presentation — the phrase, used by activists, refers to calling a transgender person by their birth name rather than the one they have chosen after transitioning. Controversy around the laptop sticker emerged during an employment tribunal in which the Met faced claims that it discriminated against officers expressing the view that sex is immutable. Melanie Newman, a detective constable who works on child abuse investigations, is suing the force over claims that she suffered harassment and discrimination because of her so-called gender-critical beliefs. The complaint against the male officer claimed that the suffragette colours are now routinely associated with “Terfs” — trans-exclusionary radical feminists — which is seen as a pejorative term. The tribunal continues.
Telegraph [2]
Integrity of sport comes first – we must protect the female category If elected IOC president this week, I will demand it adopts the same rules of fairness that have existed in athletics The Daily Telegraph19 Mar 2025Lord Coe in Costa Navarino, Greece Winning pedigree: Sebastian Coe crosses the line in the 1500m at the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow A day spent at the birthplace of the Olympic Games, and this now feels very real. The vote for the 10th president of the International Olympic Committee is upon us. I have never felt more ready. The opening ceremony for the 144th IOC session took place yesterday at the archaeological site in ancient Olympia, a magical spot where the first Games were staged in 776 BC. Fair to say, a bit has changed since. Which brings me to my reason for being here in Greece as one of seven candidates to succeed Thomas Bach as IOC president. It would be a privilege to lead this great organisation forward; to equip the Olympic movement for the challenges of tomorrow as well as today. For me, this is not a job, it’s a passion. Olympic sport is fundamental to my DNA. I have said that before but it bears repeating. I have seen the Olympic movement from all sides. I competed in two Games, I chaired a national Olympic committee, I won and then successfully delivered London 2012 and I now lead an international federation. My record is important but what I plan to do if elected is what really matters. Major challenges lie ahead. I hope the 109 IOC members voting tomorrow know by now I have the energy, enthusiasm, vision and commitment necessary to steer the ship. My entire approach is driven by the principle that whatever challenges we face, the integrity of sport comes first. My conversations with IOC members around the world in the six months since I announced my candidacy reassure me that I am not alone in this. There is broad consensus that we must reaffirm our commitment to sporting excellence, that we have been losing focus on what makes the Games special: the pursuit of stellar human achievement through fair competition. There is strong support for protecting the female category with clear, well-communicated, evidence-based policies, as we have done at World Athletics, where I am president. Also, for ensuring doping never tarnishes the values we stand for. Should I prevail, I guarantee my leadership will be shaped by these invaluable conversations, because one thing I have learnt along the way is how to build teams, empower them and take people with me. You do not deliver as a lone wolf. Capturing the imaginations of young people is key to the future health of our movement. I recognise the importance of creating an audience-first approach to the Games – delivering what the audience wants, when they want it, where they want it and with a barrier-free physical and digital experience. This is not to say you shape everything around the likes or dislikes of 15-year olds, but you have to listen to what the audience are telling you. I’m not sure we’re doing that as well as we could be. Young people tend not to see you just as a sporting organisation. They ask the more fundamental question: “Do you look like the world I live in?” If you do not, they move on very quickly. It is our duty to inspire the next generation to aspire to be Olympians and Paralympians. And for that reason, athletes must sit at the heart of the Olympic movement and every decision. They must benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the proceeds of growth. The rationale for introducing prize money into World Athletics was to address a unique issue in track and field where athletes are being recruited by many other sports. One size does not fit all and it may not be the right way to go ‘Athletes are the lifeblood of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and they deserve to share in commercial benefits’ for all sports, but my long-held belief is that athletes should be commercial partners. They should have access to more rights, to more of their own data and performance material and to elements of the Olympic brand to help them become more financially stable in their journey to becoming an Olympian. Athletes are the lifeblood of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and they deserve to share in the commercial benefits. There should be much more flexibility in how they are able to promote themselves and their sponsors during competition. I am committed to investing in technology, particularly artificial intelligence, to accelerate many aspects of sports delivery, management, talent ID and access to broadcast and high-impact moments. We have spent too long talking about the role of technology to support smaller international federations and national Olympic committees. We must now act and ensure that smart technology is put into the hands of those that can benefit most. Being able to accelerate efficiencies in administrative processes, turbo-charge antidoping testing and access worldclass coaching is in our grasp. Let’s use it and advance our joint ambitions. Having run a successful sports marketing agency I look at the Olympics as one of the most recognisable brands in the world. I see opportunities to unlock the full equity of the Olympic rings by inviting world-class companies to become strategic partners across the sporting landscape. We must empower members, athletes, Olympic committees, partners and broadcasters to help shape the organisational and commercial future of the movement. If elected, that will be an absolute priority of mine, alongside transparency of decision-making. This listen, learn and lead approach will remain my guiding principle. I am indebted to three legends of my sport for their endorsement. Thank you, to Usain Bolt, Sir Mo Farah and Armand Duplantis and the many others who have offered support. We are into the home straight. This has felt like a race and, as the finish line approaches, I take encouragement from the fact I have always been pretty good at races. Article Name:Integrity of sport comes first – we must protect the female category Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Lord Coe in Costa Navarino, Greece Start Page:12 End Page:12
Parents asked if newborn identifies as transgender, gay or ‘unsure’ The Daily Telegraph19 Mar 2025By Benedict Smith us reporter PARENTS are asked if their newborn babies identify as transgender on a form that is required under New Jersey state law, it has been claimed. A form sent out by some hospitals asks parents about their baby’s gender identity and sexual orientation. Lawmakers said the form was not required to be filled out for patients so young, but the group which represents the hospitals distributing the form insist it was a legal requirement. The form asks parents a number of questions, including: “Do you identify your baby as a transgender male/trans man/female to male”, other options include “genderqueer” or an “additional gender category”, and if the baby is lesbian or gay, heterosexual, “selfdescribes” or is “questioning/unsure”. The form was produced by Inspira Health, which operates four hospitals and eight health centres across the state, the New York Post reports. Inspira claims that it created the questionnaire to comply with a New Jersey law requiring healthcare providers to “collect race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a culturally competent and sensitive manner”. The questions are intended to “provide a safe and compassionate experience” and “comply with recently-enacted state legislation”. ‘To be handed that form in the midst of all that has no medical value, it makes no sense’ Republican State Senator Holly Schepisi told the Post: “The entire thing lacks such common sense, and serves no purpose whatsoever. “As a mom myself, I know you’re exhausted after giving birth, you’ve got a crying newborn and you’re trying to figure out how to feed it. “To be handed that sort of form in the midst of all that has no medical value, it makes no sense.” She added that she would introduce a bill next week to revise New Jersey law to limit the data collection to patients aged over 16. However, Democrat Herbert Conaway, who worked on the bill, said that it was never intended to collect information about babies’ sexual orientation. “The bill was modelled after an Indiana statute and is designed to provide public health officials with the data they need to develop public health measures that effectively serve all New Jerseyans,” Mr Conaway said. “Under the law, hospitals are required to collect and report demographic data on the patients they serve; however, no patient or parent is obligated to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable. He continued: “Newborns are not subjected to this data collection because parents are not required to fill out the form. Many health decisions for newborns are left to the parents’ discretion.” ‘The bill must provide the data they need to develop public health measures’ Inspira Health said that it was “required by New Jersey law” to “request their patients provide their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity”. It continued: “Patients are permitted to decline to provide this information. “Per recent guidance from the New Jersey Department of Health stating that health systems can collect that data in a clinically appropriate and culturally competent manner, Inspira Health will request this information from adults. “This update in protocol remains compliant with the law, and we respect patients’ right to decline to respond.” He added that the company had sought a waiver from the state but that it had not been granted. Article Name:Parents asked if newborn identifies as transgender, gay or ‘unsure’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Benedict Smith us reporter Start Page:13 End Page:13

20 Thursday Total: 4

The Times [1]
Civil service ‘activism’ erasing sex data Geraldine Scott - Senior Political Correspondent Cancer referrals have been missed and convictions overlooked because references to biological sex have been erased from data on health, crime and education, a review has found. A report commissioned by the last government and released yesterday found the word “gender” began to replace “sex” in details collected in the 1990s. For the past decade “robust” data on biological sex had been lost, it said. The study, led by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London, investigated all public bodies and found “the meaning of sex is no longer stable in administrative or major survey data”. The review found inconsistencies in the way sex and gender were recorded. Some surveys removed sex altogether and collected only information on gender identity, it found. This included a Royal Navy sexual harassment survey, which asked how respondents identified rather than their sex, “despite its obvious relevance”. In another case, a children’s camping programme raised safeguarding concerns through collecting data on gender identity, with male, female and “other” response options. Some of those interviewed for the study said there was a “hostile environment” when raising the issues in their organisations. Sullivan said ministers should “consider the vulnerability of government and public bodies to internal activism that seeks to influence outward-facing policy”. She said the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had “radically changed” how it viewed sex when collecting data. Sullivan recommended that the UK Statistics Authority — which oversees the ONS — should consider a review of activism and impartiality within the civil service. It is understood that Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has had the review circulated to all government departments, with an acknowledgment that accurate data collection is essential. Sullivan said: “We can and should collect data on both [sex and gender identity]. Acknowledging sex does not erase gender identity or vice versa.” The review found that across the NHS, “gender identity” was consistently prioritised over or replaced “sex”. Sullivan said records that traditionally represented biological sex were “unreliable” and could be altered on request. There had been a “gradual shift away from recording” sex in NHS data, she added. This led to “clear clinical risks”, such as patients not being called up for cervical smear tests or prostate exams. Sullivan said: “This has potentially fatal consequences for trans people.” In one case, a paediatrician said a child had been raised in the mother’s preferred gender, which was different from that assigned at birth. The doctor said the mother sought a change of gender when the baby was “a few weeks old” and the GP complied. Sullivan said definitions of sex and gender in the justice system were “highly inconsistent”, adding: “Many police forces record crimes by male suspects as though they were ... by women.” In schools and universities, the review found children and young adults were more likely to report being transgender without their biological sex being recorded. Sullivan said statistics were not a means of self-expression. Maya Forstater, chief executive of the human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “The government should swiftly implement the recommendations of the Sullivan review.” A government spokesman said: “The collection of accurate and relevant data is vital. We are grateful to Professor Sullivan for her work, which has been shared with relevant departments.”
Daily Mail [1]
BIOLOGICAL SEX ERASED FROM OFFICIAL DATA Review finds ‘sex’ replaced by ‘gender’ in health & crime records Daily Mail20 Mar 2025By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent CANCER screenings are being missed and crimes misrecorded because official statistics are ‘corrupted’ by extreme gender ideology, a review warned last night. A government-commissioned report found that biological sex had been erased from official data in the police, NHS and even the military. Fuelled by activism from within, official bodies have replaced sex with ‘gender identity’, putting patients and the public at risk, the independent review found. The merging of sex and gender had become ‘widespread’ in records over the past decade, it warned. Women’s rights campaigners last night called on the Government to act. Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said: ‘The problems are everywhere, from NHS records that do not record biological sex to police forces that record male sex offenders as women. These corrupted data standards have been set by bureaucrats insulated from the impact of their decisions, and competing for Stonewall awards. ‘The Government should swiftly implement the recommendations of the review.’ The review by Professor Alice Sullivan, from University College London, found that from 2015, public bodies began collecting information on gender identity rather than biological sex, meaning ‘robust and accurate data’ was lost. It said a ‘partisan climate’ existed within public bodies – including the Office for National Statistics – that has created a ‘hostile environment’ for those who believe in biological sex. Professor Sullivan’s report calls for the statistics regulator to urgently carry out a ‘review of activism and impartiality within the civil service’ in relation to official figures. The 226-page review was commissioned under Rishi Sunak to examine the collection of accurate data and statistics on biological sex. It concludes that there has been a ‘widespread loss of data on sex’ which poses a risk to the public, with this risk particularly high in health and social care settings and among children. Across the NHS, ‘gender identity is consistently prioritised over or replaces sex... putting individuals at risk, Professor Sullivan found. It undermines medical research and poses the risk that people are not called up for sex-specific checks, such as cervical cancers screenings or prostate exams, potentially with ‘fatal consequences’. It also presents a safeguarding risk to children because under the current rules there is no minimum age at which a was irresistible.’ She added three laughing emojis. Relations between Ms Rowling and the three actors have been frosty for years because of her views on trans rights. She said she could not ‘forgive’ Radcliffe, Ms Watson and other celebrities who ‘cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights’. child’s sex and NHS number can be changed, the Sullivan Review adds. It gives a real example of a child who was ‘brought up in the preferred gender of the mother which was different to their birth-assigned gender’. It adds: ‘She had gone to the GP and requested a change of gender/NHS number when the baby was a few weeks old and the GP had complied. Children’s Social Care did not perceive this as a child protection issue.’ Professor Sullivan also found that the recording of sex and gender across the justice system and police forces is ‘highly inconsistent’, meaning data is often not reliable, particularly when it comes to female offending, and specifically in cases where biological male rapists who identify as trans women have been recorded as female. Guidance notes for officers reviewed by the professor found that it is ‘quite possible’ that if somebody who has been arrested has legally changed their gender and not informed police, they ‘could be released or otherwise dealt with before any link to their previous offending history is known’. Several Ministry of Defence surveys are said to collect information on only gender identity, including a Royal Navy sexual harassment questionnaire that did not collect data on sex ‘despite its obvious relevance to the subject matter’, instead asking if service personnel identify as male, female, or non-binary. It is understood the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has shared the recommendations with other government departments for consideration. A Whitehall spokesman said: ‘This government is clear that the collection of accurate and relevant data is vital in research and the operation of effective public services, particularly when it comes to sex.’ Article Name:BIOLOGICAL SEX ERASED FROM OFFICIAL DATA Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:1 End Page:1
Telegraph [2]
Criminals free to pick their own gender Labour will not force police to record biological sex despite report’s findings The Daily Telegraph20 Mar 2025By Daniel Martin DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR CRIMINALS are free to pick their gender because the Government is refusing to force police to record biological sex. An independent review, published yesterday, said police forces and the NHS should collect data on sex rather than just self-declared gender identity. It urged Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, to issue a mandatory order to all 43 English and Welsh police forces, and the British Transport Police, to do so. But last night, the Government would not commit to implementing the recommendations, saying merely that the report would be sent to departments to be considered alongside the views of “other interested parties”. It comes after The Telegraph revealed that police forces and courts were routinely allowing criminals to self-identify their gender, with transgender rapists among those recorded as female. Critics say that allowing public bodies to remove sex from statistical records compromises research into women’s issues and makes it difficult for experts to spot trends in rape cases, medical trials or gender pay gaps. Prof Alice Sullivan, from the Social Research Institute at University College London, who led the review, said cancer referrals had been missed and previous convictions overlooked because biological sex was not being recorded. Speaking to The Telegraph, Prof Sullivan said the conflation of sex and gender was “systemic” across public bodies. “There seems to be a legal fiction that public bodies cannot collect data on sex,” she said. “This report should show them that they can.” She also warned against the influence of trans activists, saying ministers should “consider the vulnerability of government and public bodies to internal activism that seeks to influence outward-facing policy”. Prof Sullivan spoke of the operational risks if a person did not inform the police that they had changed their legal sex and had a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The review found that guidance notes for officers state that it is “quite possible” that an arrested person who had acquired a gender recognition certificate without informing the police “could be released or otherwise dealt with before any link to their previous offending history is known”. “This is also likely to be true of those who self-declare a different sex and name,” the guidance states. The report recommended that those with a GRC should be listed according to their biological sex, not their legal sex. Despite criminals’ gender being recorded as they choose, trans prisoners who identify as women but have male genitalia or those convicted of violent sexual offences cannot be held in female jails, unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, there have been exceptions including that of Isla Bryson, a biological man sent to a female prison even though he had been found guilty of raping two women while living as a man. Bryson was subsequently moved to a male prison. The Sullivan report also said that in the NHS “gender identity is consistently prioritised over or replaces sex”. It said that the health service should “urgently” stop issuing self-identified trans people with new NHS numbers attached to their new gender. The practice leads to “clear clinical risks”, such as patients not being called up for cervical smear tests or prostate examinations. The report, which was commissioned by Michelle Donelan, the former Tory science secretary, under Rishi Sunak, was published on the website of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology yesterday. A government spokesman said departments would consider the findings alongside the views of “other interested parties”. A spokesman for the Department for Health said: “There are new, serious findings in this report which the department will urgently investigate.” Article Name:Criminals free to pick their own gender Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daniel Martin DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR Start Page:1 End Page:1

21 Friday Total: 8

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
End to the changing of children’s gender on NHS medical records Geraldine Scott - Senior Political Correspondent Doctors will be banned from giving transgender children a new NHS record after it emerged that biological sex had been erased from official data. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said it was wrong that doctors were changing the NHS numbers of children if they changed gender. He has told the health service to stop giving out new NHS numbers to under-18s. The news comes after a review commissioned by the last government and released on Wednesday found that the word “gender” started to replace “sex” in the collection of data in the 1990s and that for the past ten years “robust and accurate data on biological sex” had been lost. Cancer referrals were missed and previous convictions were overlooked because biological sex had been erased from official data on health, crime and education. In medicine, adults and children have been able to request their gender is changed on their medical record. When this happens, a new NHS number and, therefore, medical record would be created. The review, led by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London, reported how in one case a paediatrician said that a child had been brought up in the preferred gender of the mother, which was different to their birth-assigned gender. “[The mother] had gone to the GP and requested a change of gender/NHS number when the baby was a few weeks old and the GP complied. Children’s social care did not perceive this as a child protection issue,” the doctor reported. The health secretary said yesterday: “It’s completely wrong that children’s NHS numbers can be changed if they change gender. “I’ve made it clear this must not happen. We must deliver safe and holistic care for adults and children when it comes to gender, and that also means accurately recording biological sex. I have always made it clear that doing so does not stop us from recording, recognising and respecting people’s gender identity.” It is not known how many cases there have been where a child’s sex marker has been changed by the NHS or whether it is something that could be tracked. Sullivan said she welcomed Streeting’s “decisive action to implement the recommendations of the review” and that she hoped “other ministers will follow suit”. Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said Streeting’s decision was “a welcome return to common sense”. Forstater said: “Changing sex markers on children’s medical records should never have been allowed. It was not just misguided but reckless. Sex matters in healthcare and no one can change sex. “Anyone who cares about patient safety should insist that every patient’s sex is recorded accurately. Medical records aren’t for validating people’s identities. This is just the first step in rooting this dangerous ideology out of the NHS.” In December Streeting announced an indefinite ban on puberty blockers being prescribed to children. Although puberty blockers had been banned on the NHS, outside of clinical trials, since last March, an order preventing the prescription of the medication from European or private prescribers since May had only been temporary. Streeting said he took advice from independent experts who warned that prescribing such medication to under- 18s for gender dysphoria presented “an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people”.
Daily Mail [2]
NHS told not to change children’s gender data Daily Mail21 Mar 2025By Sam Merriman and Shaun Wooller Trouble brewing? This Morning hosts Ben Shephard and Cat Deeley join in WES Streeting yesterday ordered a ban on children’s gender being changed in their NHS medical files. The Health Secretary’s move came after a Government-commissioned report found biological sex had been erased from official data as well as from police and military records. Among the ‘serious safeguarding concerns’ highlighted in the review was the case of a mother who requested a sex change for their weeks-old baby ‘and the GP had complied’, granting the child a new NHS number. Mr Streeting said ‘children’s safety must come first’ that the NHS was suspending all in-process or new applications for gender changes and new NHS numbers for under-18s. Review author, Professor Alice Sullivan, of University College London, said: ‘I hope other ministers will follow suit. The fact that there was no lower age limit on when the NHS gender marker can be changed... was the one thing that really knocked me for six.’ Mr Streeting said: ‘We must deliver safe and holistic care for adults and children when it comes to gender, and that also means accurately recording biological sex.’ The Sullivan Review found that collecting data on gender identity rather than biological sex has meant people have not been called up for sex-specific checks such as cervical cancers screenings or prostate exams, potentially with ‘fatal consequences’. Comment – Page 14 ‘Safe and holistic care’ FROM our love of queueing to apologising for everything, this country has a long history of confusing foreigners with its quirky traditions. But a fresh craze relating to our tea-drinking habit has really taken the biscuit – with Britons piling in to compound the misery of utterly bamboozled Americans. A viral social media trend shows British TikTok users dropping everything to make a cuppa due to a so-called ‘tea time alarm’. Designed to playfully tease US-based onlookers, the make-believe alert reminds the British public to drink tea each day. The joke has even been picked up by the Government’s TikTok account, in a clip showing a national ‘tea alarm button’ that garnered almost 800,000 views. One hapless American woman named Brandy came across the popular leg-pull and posed several questions in her own TikTok video. One baffled inquiry was: ‘When the tea time alarm goes off, if you’re in the bathroom or you’re walking around on the street, what do you do? ‘Do you go to a friend’s house? Do you go to a cafe? Do you keep some in your backpack?’ A British account led her further astray in response, claiming: ‘When the tea alarm goes off you just go into the nearest home, shop, building and they will be making tea and you’ll be given a cup. ‘It’s illegal for them to turn you away, they will be prosecuted.’ Rochelle Raye Anthony, runner-up on The Apprentice in 2023, in a separate post added: ‘I keep seeing Americans asking whether this tea time alarm thing is real or not real. Have you never travelled outside of America?’ team returning to shore, This Morning hosts Cat Deeley, with a caption saying: ‘In 201 48, and Ben Shephard, 50, years of the RNLI we’ve never joined in the fun as the pair missed a tea alarm.’ filmed a sketch for the ITV Heinz Beans, another show where they were almost national favourite, cheekily caught out by the alert. asked on X: ‘Anyone fancy a And firefighters at South custard beanz for the tea time Yorkshire Fire and Rescue alarm today?’ unboxed a device which they The trend has inspired TikTok joked wirelessly connects to users to create fake the ‘tea alarm tower, amplifying accounts called the TVLA or the national alarm and giving TeaVLA – a pun on the Driver you those vital extra seconds’ and Vehicle Licensing Agency to make a cup of tea. – warning the public to obey Meanwhile, the Royal the tea time alarm to avoid National Lifeboat Institution being fined. (RNLI) shared a video of a rescue Others have shared extreme ways the alarm has forced them to drink tea, including a duo who rushed to make a cuppa before ziplining over the Eden Project in Cornwall. In a video posted by nearby Hangloose Adventure on its TikTok account, Karis Lawer, 25, pours tea from a thermal flask into two mugs before pushing her colleague, Martin Kelly, 24, down the zipline while holding the drink after the national alarm went off during a test flight. Mr Kelly, operations manager at the adventure camp, suggested the national tea time alert was ingrained in the country’s psyche. He said: ‘It’s normal for every British person to have at least three cups a day, so I think the siren goes off without us noticing half the time.’ Ms Lawer, the site’s duty manager, added: ‘Tea is already something we have daily, so to make a video pretending that there’s an alarm that goes off in order for us to have tea is such an easy thing to do. It’s so effective.’ The duo advised: ‘Do not be afraid to drink tea anywhere.’ ‘Ingrained in the country’s psyche’ Article Name:NHS told not to change children’s gender data Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman and Shaun Wooller Start Page:12 End Page:12
Wokery costs lives Daily Mail21 Mar 2025 THE foisting of extreme gender ideology on to official statistics by civil servants is not just some harmless wokery. It is a realworld danger to public safety. A government-commissioned review into the scandal found the NHS, police and others prioritised recording a person’s gender identity over biological sex in vital data. The grim upshot was all too inevitable. Cancer screenings missed, previous convictions overlooked, children put at risk. Keir Starmer says it is ‘common sense’ for public services to record biological sex. But Labour and the Left themselves have become infected with this brain-mashing, woke virus. Public services must deal with scientific reality, not fashionable ideology. Carelessly collecting data statistics can cost lives.
Telegraph [5]
The Brigitte Macron conspiracy theory False rumours about the French first lady’s gender are being circulated by Trump-supporting commentators. By Marianka Swain The Daily Telegraph21 Mar 2025 Relations between France and America might be about to get even frostier. Right-wing US commentators have reignited an absurd rumour about Brigitte Macron, wife of French president Emmanuel Macron: namely, that she was actually born male and has been hiding her transgender status from the world. The most prominent proponents of this outlandish conspiracy theory are two Trump-supporting, conservative voices: Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who supercharged the gossip after claiming it was true in a video posted on YouTube last week. For her part, Owens, a social media personality, first latched on to the scurrilous rumour a year ago, posting a video to her YouTube channel titled: “Is France’s first lady a man?” Promoting it on X (formerly Twitter), Owens wrote: “Stop everything and watch this! Not a joke or an exaggeration to say that barring political assassinations, this is likely the biggest scandal that has ever happened in politics in human history.” Since then, the story has become a popular topic in corners of the internet frequented by followers of Donald Trump’s Maga movement. In her March 2024 video (since deleted), Owens referred to the probable original source of the salacious story: a 2021 article in Right-wing French journal Faits et Documents, which made the jaw-dropping claim that Brigitte, 71, and her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux were actually the same person. The story posited that Jean-Michel doesn’t actually exist: Brigitte herself was born JeanMichel, then transitioned from male to female at the age of 30. “I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man,” announced Owens in a follow-up post on X. “Any journalist or publication that is trying to dismiss this plausibility is immediately identifiable as establishment.” She added: “The implications here are terrifying.” The video, in Owens’s words, “blew up”, which perhaps explains why this became her pet topic. She has since treated her 4.07 million YouTube subscribers to numerous posts about the French first lady, including a multi-part video series called “Becoming Brigitte”. Owens is undeterred by criticism of her campaign, including from Piers Morgan. On his show in June last year, the broadcaster – who called her claims “very offensive, very wrong” – bet Owens $100,000 (to be donated to charity) that Mrs Macron is in fact a woman. Then, in a video from January 2025 called “I Got A Legal Threat From A Sitting President…”, Owens revealed that she had been contacted by a law firm representing the Macrons. She shared a section of that letter which read: “This disinformation campaign is almost entirely based on a negative – Mrs Macron has not provided definitive proof that she is a woman; therefore, she must be a man.” The letter argued that Mrs Macron did not owe Owens proof and claimed that Owens was being “defamatory”. But getting the attention of France’s first family has only fuelled Owens’s campaign. In February, she posted a video interview with French journalist Xavier Poussard, editor of Faits et Documents and author of the book Devenir Brigitte, or Becoming Brigitte (which subsequently shot to the top of the Amazon charts). That video has clocked up 1.7million views. It’s Mrs Macron’s daughter said the gossip was ‘grotesque’, and ‘a form of harassment’ exactly the outcome Poussard was hoping for, according to Emmanuelle Anizon, a journalist at French weekly Le Nouvel Obs and the author of a book about the conspiracy, called L’affaire Madame – Anatomie d’une fake news (The Madame Affair – Anatomy of Fake News). She told Agence FrancePresse last year that Poussard started translating his Macron articles into English in 2023 and sent them to associates of Trump. It was his dream, Anizon added, “to export this rumour across the Atlantic”. The theory had initially just been a home-grown obsession. Selfdescribed journalist Natacha Rey amplified the Faits et Documents story via a four-hour YouTube video in December 2021 in which she was interviewed by spiritual medium Amandine Roy, and called Mrs Macron’s identity a “state lie”. She claimed that Mrs Macron’s first husband, André-Louis Auzière, never actually existed, and that Auzière’s uncle had forged documents to hide the fact that his own wife had given birth to Macron’s three children. The video went viral in the build-up to France’s 2022 presidential election, garnering half a million views before YouTube removed it for violating its guidelines around “fake news”. But the genie was out of the bottle. The hashtag #JeanMichelTrogneux, which referred to Macron’s alleged real male name, was trending on X (then Twitter), in France in the days after the video was posted. In total, it was used on the platform more than 66,000 times while being spread by accounts including those administered by anti-vaccine groups and followers of the QAnon conspiracy movement – which states the world is run by a cabal of cannibalistic paedophiles. The Macrons fought back. Speaking at an event in Paris in March last year, the president said of the rumour: “The worst thing is the false information and fabricated scenarios. People eventually believe them and disturb you, even in your intimacy.” Also in March, Mrs Macron’s daughter, Tiphaine Auzière, told broadcaster BFMTV that the rumours were “grotesque”, and “a form of harassment”. The first lady filed a successful libel complaint against Roy and Rey, and last September the defendants were ordered to pay her the equivalent of £6,750 in damages, as well as £4,205 to her brother Jean-Michel. However, that spirited public defence has, ironically, kept the story alive. Owens first heard of it thanks to an article about Macron’s furious response. Now the American commentator Tucker Carlson has picked up the baton. In a YouTube video posted last week, Carlson backed up the claim made by “my friend Candace Owens”. He says he had initially dismissed the rumour as a “flat Earth” conspiracy. “Then it turns out she’s right – my mind is blown!” declares Carlson, offering no justification for this assertion. Russian state media is also picking up Owens’ claims. For others, meanwhile, the “truth” is even stranger still. Owens fan Gabby Garcia took to TikTok last month with a bizarre Oedipal plot twist. She claimed that the president isn’t just married to a trans woman – but that Mrs Macron is actually his own father. “I know that it sounds insane,” says Garcia, in arguably the understatement of the year. “My brain is melting.” She’s not alone. But how on earth did this absurd accusation gain global traction? Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at the University of Cambridge, points out that we live in a fragmented media environment. “We don’t have central dissemination of news. Instead people are in tiny echo chambers, slavishly trusting their chosen sources of information. It’s hard for us to share the same reality. Those are ideal conditions for conspiracy theories to thrive. “Even if people don’t fully believe in a rumour, they might share it as a symbol of their beliefs or the political group they support.” Joseph Uscinski, professor of political science at the University of Miami, observes that commentators such as Owens and Tucker have “a built-in, conspiracyminded audience. Those viewers didn’t slip on a banana peel and end up here: they specifically chose a channel outside of the mainstream media. The broadcasters then have to provide the content they desire. The Macron story is ideal fodder. It feeds into their existing biases, plus it’s outrageous and fun”. Such audiences might not even know who Brigitte Macron is, but this conspiracy relates to a larger narrative, explains Van der Linden. “It’s a combination of evil elites hiding stuff from us and not being who they say they are, and suspicion of trans people and gender ideology. It’s a more palatable version of the conspiracy that powerful leaders are actually lizards – that’s a bridge too far for most people.” The Macron transgender accusation is clearly recycled, says Van der Linden. “The exact same story was peddled about Michelle Obama and Jacinda Ardern.” But even if it’s nonsense, the fact that some world leaders and their allies are engaging in conspiracy theory rhetoric means that it’s harder to outright dismiss it, says Uscinski. “Tucker and Candace are piggybacking on Trump.” That points to the deadly serious part of this otherwise ludicrous saga. Relations between France and America are already troubled, with one French politician, Raphaël Glucksmann, even claiming this week that the country should take back the Statue of Liberty after what he characterised as President Trump deciding to “side with the tyrants” in the war on Ukraine. It’s not inconceivable that if the rumour becomes associated with supporters of Trump, the issue could add further strain to an already tricky relationship between the US president and his French counterpart. Such an outcome would certainly be welcome in Moscow, says Van der Linden. “Russia’s goal is to stoke division and chaos,” he warns. Unsubstantiated rumours, after all, can often have very real consequences. Article Name:The Brigitte Macron conspiracy theory Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:4 End Page:4
Why is Starmer still giving in to a tiny minority of gender terrorists? The Daily Telegraph21 Mar 2025Judith Woods Single sex spaces: supporters of nurse Sandie Peggie, who complained about sharing a changing room with a trans woman Appeasement. Could there be a more ignoble policy? Just ask Neville Chamberlain. Better still Winston Churchill himself observed that “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last”. There is something uniquely craven about a political leader who seeks to make peace with bullies at the expense of honest citizens. So has it come to pass in Britain? On the world stage, Sir Keir Starmer has, rightly, positioned himself as a vocal and honourable ally of Ukraine. Yet here he has shown himself to be a man of straw, unwilling and unable to stand up to militant transgender activists. They constitute a tiny minority yet they now increasingly control the narrative. A friend in her early 70s is due to have a serious operation next month in Glasgow. Her greatest worry? The consequences if she uses the wrong pronouns. A silly old woman? No, she’s educated to PhD level; a successful businesswoman. It’s no wonder she’s agitated, given that NHS Scotland now has a legal duty to treat biologically male colleagues with facial hair as women – if they identify as female. “I’m not a narrow-minded person,” she tells me apologetically. “But I’m afraid I’ll panic and say the wrong thing and be made an example of when I’m at my most vulnerable.” It’s not just patients who are at risk of a witch hunt. Sandie Peggie, a nurse of 30 years, is locked in a battle royale with NHS Fife after complaining that she felt uncomfortable sharing a female changing room with trans woman Dr Beth Upton – and was suspended. Peggie’s claim that she was subject to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act is disputed by the health board, which has described it as “unnecessary and vexatious”. I’d love to dispel my friend’s fears but given NHS trusts south of the border have variously been told not to use the term “midwife” (as it could hurt transgender people’s feelings) and to stop describing babies as being “born male or female” but to use the egregiously nonsensical “assigned female/male at birth”, I’m not sure I can offer her much reassurance. In recent days, we have learnt that criminals are free to pick their gender because the Government is refusing to force police to record biological sex. Despite an independent review advising that police forces should collect data on sex rather than just a person’s self-declared gender identity, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has declined to issue a mandatory order to all 43 English and Welsh police forces, and the British Transport Police, to do so. If that’s not the politics of appeasement, then what is? I, hand on heart, had no inkling that “hurt feelings” were such a potent force in determining government strategy. Not the hurt feelings of the silent majority, being taken for fools obviously, but the shouty, look-at-me feelings of attention-seeking activists hell-bent on shaping society to suit their needs. If you Google “how many transgender people are there in the UK?” you are directed to a government website, and met with the following response: “We don’t know. No robust data on the UK trans population exists. We tentatively estimate that there are approximately 200,000-500,000 trans people in the UK.” Out of a population totalling 69 million. Now it all makes sense – at least it does to Labour, apparently. “My heart sinks every time I walk into a clinic or hospital and see someone in a rainbow lanyard,” whispers another friend, in her early 50s with two children. “I just know that they will be absolutely primed to take offence at something I say, so I just avoid them.” I’m not sure I’m fully on board with such an extreme flight response. But then again I’d be fibbing if I pretended I didn’t know what she meant. Is it transphobic to snigger when a man is asked by a hospital administrator if he’s pregnant? Or prejudiced to roll our eyes when my friend’s 80-something mother was rigorously questioned about her Aids status? We are living in a cowardly new world where doctors who change gender are given new GMC records under new GMC numbers, men are being registered as women and everywhere there is the supine acceptance by our elected representatives of the pernicious terminology being foisted upon us. Upon women. You don’t have to be Aldous Huxley or George Orwell to grasp that through language you can erase reality, erase truth, erase women. It’s time to mount a fightback against the woke warriors. I, for one, refuse to accept the pejorative label “gender critical” simply because I refuse to be brainwashed into believing the arrant nonsense pedalled by those who want to be different (fine) and to compel us to codify that nonsense (not fine) and punish those who disagree. Men don’t see their safe spaces being encroached upon so they don’t care much. If they did, I have a hunch that hurt feelings wouldn’t be the matter under discussion. Much better to bully women, make women shift over to make room, and take away women’s single-sex safeguards. How can it be fair if half the population’s rights are being cheese-pared away to keep the 0.5 (ish) per cent happy? Starmer must stop conceding ground in the culture war immediately. Appeasement is appeasement even when it’s dressed up as inclusivity. Article Name:Why is Starmer still giving in to a tiny minority of gender terrorists? Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Judith Woods Start Page:7 End Page:7
NHS ban on trans children altering record The Daily Telegraph21 Mar 2025By Dominic Penna TRANSGENDER children will be banned from getting a new NHS record after an intervention by Wes Streeting. The health service has been ordered to stop issuing new NHS numbers to under-18s who want to change their gender, following a damning independent review. Until now, children of any age have been allowed to request a gender change on their medical record at any time. This involves the issuing of a new NHS number and medical record to change the gender marker. The review, by Alice Sullivan at the Social Research Institute at University College London, highlighted serious concerns about this practice because it means data on biological sex can be lost, creating safeguarding and clinical care risks. Mr Streeting, the Health Secretary, said “children’s safety must come first” as he confirmed the changes yesterday. He said: “It’s wrong that children’s NHS numbers can be changed if they change gender, and I’ve made it clear this must not happen. We must deliver safe and holistic care for both adults and children when it comes to gender, and that also means accurately recording biological sex – not just for research and insight, but also for patient safety.” The Department for Health and Social Care is understood to be concerned about the impact of number changes on vital research that follows people who have already transitioned. Among the cases highlighted by Ms Sullivan was a serious safeguarding breach where a baby that was only three weeks old had its NHS number and gender changed.
Oxford tweaks Latin event to please persona non binary Historic ceremony to use gender-neutral language for first time in 800 years in push for inclusivity The Daily Telegraph21 Mar 2025By Craig Simpson and Sam Ashworth-hayes OXFORD is set to make an 800-year-old Latin ceremony gender-neutral for the benefit of non-binary students. The university has conferred its degrees in Latin since the 12th century, but the wording used could be changed to make it more inclusive. Dons will vote on a proposal to change the Latin ceremonial text to cater to those “who identify as non-binary”. In a gazette issued to alert faculties to the planned changes, the introduction of the first gender-neutral degree ceremony in Oxford’s almost 1,000-year history is deemed “necessary”.
They said it couldn’t be done, but the clever men at Oxford have contrived to make degree speeches in Latin gender-neutral, to suit those “who identify as non-binary”. No longer will Masters of Arts be addressed as magistri in university ceremonies, but as vos “you lot”. It is all smoke and mirrors, of course, mostly smoke. The words to make someone a Master of Arts, for example, will still refer to the initiate as Magistrum in Artibus, no matter with which of 43 genders the candidate may identify that day. A woman cannot choose to be made a Magistram in Artibus, Mistress of Arts. The brute fact is that Latin has grammatical gender and any noun is masculine, feminine or neuter whatever sex the thing is that the word refers to. It was not necessarily rude in Latin to use the word cunnus, but its gender was masculine.

22 Saturday Total: 2

The Times [2]
Scientist pushed out over gender beliefs Porton Down expert said he was treated as if he had been showing support for al-Qaeda, Fiona Hamilton writes At Porton Down for 15 years. Next image › As a scientist at Porton Down developing technology to secure Britain’s defences, Peter Wilkins never imagined he would be considered a threat because of a belief in biology. But when he stated his gender-critical views and support for the concept of immutable sex, Wilkins was reported for his “ideology” and labelled by colleagues as transphobic, “sad and pathetic” and “a rubbish employee”. An employment tribunal has found there was a “clear hostile animus” towards gender-critical beliefs at the topsecret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory [DSTL]. It found that an intimidating atmosphere resulted in the harassment and discrimination of Wilkins, 43, who was forced to leave as a result. Senior officials failed to address the behaviour because of an “unblinking desire” to support the pro-trans lobby. Speaking after he won a two-year legal battle with DTSL, Wilkins still appears slightly bemused that he had to have the argument. “It’s a scientific organisation,” he said, “so it shouldn’t be unacceptable to use the phrase biological sex. I was never looking for DSTL to endorse my beliefs, or for anything to be said against people on the other side of the debate. But it just felt very one-sided. “And it was pretty hurtful, really, having spent 15 years working for DSTL on some things which were high-security, to be told that we think you’re a security risk because you have these fairly normal, run-of-the-mill, factual beliefs about sex and genders.” A panel led by the employment judge Gary Self, sitting at Southampton, warned that senior officials had lost sight of their obligation to be impartial despite high-profile legal rulings that gender-critical views are a protected right under the Equality Act. The case underlines how parts of the civil service have been affected by the debate, with abuse of gender-critical philosophy waged on an internal blog that DSTL employees would use to discuss the issue, often during work time. At least one other person has left the organisation over “spats” on the blog. Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, which supported Wilkins, said: “They’re meant to be fighting world wars not culture wars.” Wilkins had worked for DSTL for 15 years, including secondments to support operations in Afghanistan and a role attracting innovative technology into defence. In August 2021, when the neuroscientist Sophie Scott was awarded the Royal Society’s Faraday prize, a DSTL employee wrote on the internal blog that it was “pretty disheartening” given that Scott was “well known for her non-inclusive views on trans and non-binary people”. Another wrote that it emboldened transphobes. Wilkins complained to moderators that this was “deeply unfair” to Scott, who had simply applied her scientific expertise to her views. It left the implication, he warned, that anyone with gender-critical beliefs should not receive public recognition for their work. His concerns were not properly acted upon. In the following months a string of blog posts demeaned people with such views. One DSTL employee wrote that explicitly stating gender-critical beliefs was “abusive”. Another described gender criticism as bigotry and one said those who supported gender-critical views led “sad pathetic little lives”. After Wilkins liked a post on Linked- In by the gender-critical charity Sex Matters, a colleague suggested that “GC beliefs were an ideology” and that the matter should be referred to security and HR. They took no further action but Wilkins said it was astonishing that he was flagged “in the same way as if I was expressing support for the provisional IRA or al-Qaeda”. The judgment details how Wilkins, a Christian, repeatedly and calmly asked for management intervention, explaining to HR officials and other colleagues that his beliefs were protected after the Maya Forstater ruling. He did not believe that such posts would be tolerated if they were focused on any other protected belief or religion. Senior staff did not stop the harassment, the tribunal found. Management viewed PRISM, the DSTL sexual orientation and gender identity network, “as a powerful force within the organisation and were loath to do anything to go against [or] upset that body”. Paul Kealey, head of counterterrorism at Porton Down, was singled out for criticism. He told Wilkins that while staff were permitted to hold gendercritical beliefs, it was “not OK to express such views in the workplace”. The tribunal detailed how he created a “hostile and intimidatory environment” for Wilkins and encouraged staff to pick a side, including lobbying on the blog over the conversion therapy ban and to support reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Kealey, a finalist for Advocate of the Year at the LGBTQ+ Defence Awards in November, “lost sight of his obligation to be impartial in line with the Civil Service Code”. Wilkins resigned in November 2022, citing a hostile, intimidating and degrading environment. The tribunal concluded that he was constructively dismissed. Wilkins, who now works in the private sector, said he had spoken up not just because of the imbalance and unfairness of the gender debate but also because he was concerned about the impact it could have on important work at Porton Down. There were numerous examples where females had been disadvantaged in the military, including in the provision of body armour did not fit females as well as males: “To address those kinds of issues you’ve got to recognise the biological differences between the sexes,” he said. He was also concerned that the negative opinions of feminist scientists might cloud Porton Down’s assessment of their important research. Harris said that Wilkins has been resoundingly vindicated: “Peter was exquisitely patient in pointing out, again and again, that DSTL cannot demean employees for holding the ‘wrong’ view about sex and gender. DSTL’s response that it is ‘not OK’ to express gender-critical views in the workplace was a flagrantly unlawful suppression of our member’s freedom of speech. We expect DSTL now to put its house in order, and to respond accordingly to the tribunal’s finding of serious breach of the Civil Service Code by senior employees.” DSTL is expected to have to pay substantial damages. The tribunal dismissed claims of victimisation. A spokeswoman said: “We will review the judgment and following that we will look to take any appropriate actions. We cannot make any further comment on individual cases.”
Confusion over sex made years of data useless Alice Sullivan has revealed how far gender politics led both state and private sectors astray when recording statistics Sarah Ditum @sarahditum Alice Sullivan — author of the governmentcommissioned review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender that was published this week — is a sociologist with a neat pixie haircut and a gently sensible tone of voice. Her academic work is careful, analytical and concerned with questions of survey design. With all respect to Sullivan (a professor at UCL), it is hard to imagine anyone finding her terrifying. That is, until you remember the feverish atmosphere of the gender wars at their peak. In 2019, the Office for National Statistics announced plans for a new, “inclusive” version of the sex question on the national census, which would allow respondents to answer according to their self-identified gender rather than their physical sex. Sullivan criticised this in an open letter she organised, signed by 80 academics, pointing out that it would “undermine data reliability on a key demographic variable and damage our ability to capture and remedy sexbased discrimination and inequality”. For such a dry statement of fact, she was no-platformed by NatCen (the National Centre for Social Research), who cancelled a seminar she was due to speak at. Better to pull the whole event, apparently, than be compromised by association with a woman like Sullivan with socalled terf tendencies. But she was right that the census was badly worded. After a legal challenge, the guidance was rewritten to clarify that the question was about physical sex. Unfortunately, the follow-up included by the ONS — “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” — was so confusing that the resulting data on the trans population of England and Wales was a load of hot nonsense. According to the 2021 census, transgender adults are more religious than the general population, more likely to be Muslim and less likely to be native speakers. Adults with no formal qualifications were three times as likely to fall into the “unspecified gender” category as those with degrees. Plainly, this was not a reflection of reality. All it showed was that the ONS had embraced a version of gender politics that was deeply confusing to anyone outside the gilded circle of graduates who spend their lives online. In attempting to write an “inclusive” question, the ONS had excluded a huge chunk of the population from understanding it. Following that, Sullivan was commissioned by Michelle Donelan, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology under the last government, to write the review that has now been published. In it, she recommends that data on sex should be collected by default, and that sex should mean sex: male or female. Questions about trans identification, where appropriate, should be asked in a separate and clearly worded follow-up. Trans people can miss out on medical care appropriate for their sex It’s a sign of how much things have changed since 2019 that the Sullivan review has been welcomed across left and right as obvious and sensible. Peter Kyle, Donelan’s successor, immediately circulated the report to all government departments. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, posted on X that he would “act on findings” — particularly significant given the issues around data related to sex in the NHS. Even on social media, the backlash was muted. Before declaring the gender wars over, though, it’s worth reading Sullivan’s review in full. There you’ll find a litany of errors across every imaginable realm of data, from the Royal Navy (which surveyed staff about sexual harassment but only asked for their gender identity rather than their sex, which you might think was more pertinent to the issue in hand), to sport (where none of the surveys that Sullivan reviewed contained reliable data about sex). This confusion about sex and gender began as early as the 1990s in some cases, escalating through the 2000s and the 2010s. It’s difficult to track exactly where the rot began, because records of decision-making were rarely kept; but it appears that organisations began taking advice from campaign groups such as Stonewall and “updating” their standards accordingly. The result is decades worth of horribly compromised statistics. Among the biggest losers in this are trans people. When sex markers are changed on health records, trans people can miss out on the medical care appropriate for their sex. Or think of the census question: if you trusted those results, you’d believe that the most urgent need of trans people in England and Wales was remedial English classes. As Sullivan has stressed in her interview rounds, good data is good for everybody. Even now, though, there is a rump of opposition from those in the trans activist camp, who want statistics to be a means of personal selfexpression rather than an aggregate of general trends. The campaign group Transactual called the review “biased, inadequate and potentially harmful to all”. Kevin Guyan of the University of Edinburgh (who claims to adopt “a queer data approach to contemporary data practices”, whatever that is) went so far as to call it “Trumpian”. Such tactics worked once, but no longer. The effort to elide moderate, considerate critics of gender identity with rising anti- LGBT totalitarianism in the US only shows how hollow the accusations of bigotry against Sullivan were in the first place. While trans activists were bullying female academics and congratulating themselves on “fighting fascism”, a bigger threat was gathering. It’s harder to cancel the American president than to cancel a sociologist. The cheap victories won by trans activism have left it exposed and without allies as a movement now. As with the harm to statistics, the damage to the LGBT movement is done and will take much work to unpick. In both cases, the best time to start the return to sanity is right now.

23 Sunday Total: 2

The Observer [1]
ON OTHER PAGES The Observer23 Mar 2025 Cutting spending is not the only option, chancellor The idea that the reality of people’s biological sex is immaterial in society, and that it can be replaced by the concept of gender identity – whether someone feels male or female – is a highly contested belief system that does not reflect British equalities law. Yet in recent years, it has come to dominate sections of the public sphere spanning institutions as diverse as the NHS, the police and universities, as activists have sought to impose this personal belief on everyone. The extent to which leaders in those institutions have caved in to activist pressures has led to real-world detriment. Gender questioning children and young people have been prescribed untested drugs with harmful side effects by NHS clinicians. Rape crisis services have failed to provide women who have been sexually assaulted with single-sex services. Male rapists and sex offenders who say they believe they are really women have been locked up in female prisons with vulnerable women. The police have unlawfully tried to discourage people who believe biological sex is real from exercising their democratic right to free speech. Employment tribunal rulings illustrate how many people – particularly women – who have refused to comply with this belief system have been bullied and hounded out of their workplaces. And now a new governmentcommissioned review led by Prof Alice Sullivan of University College London has highlighted the extent to which official data sources have been corrupted by gender ideology. Sullivan was commissioned to lead this review by the last government after the Office for National Statistics had to be taken to court by a grassroots feminist group to try to get it to collect accurate data on sex in the 2021 census. Her report lays bare the extent to which ideologically captured institutions are today failing to collect critical data on sex in a way that allows us to understand how important social trends are affecting men and women differently, and the harms this is causing. In healthcare, the NHS is failing to accurately record people’s sex on patient records so that trans people are not being called for their relevant sex-specific cancer screenings, while medical samples, such as blood tests, are incorrectly assessed or even rejected by laboratories. Many police forces are recording male crimes as committed by women on the basis of requests from male perpetrators saying they identify as female; in 2021 Police Scotland even explicitly said that in cases where male rapists who penetrate their victim with their penis say they identify as female, it would record those rapes as being perpetrated by a woman (only appearing to shift this policy late last year) This undermines societal understanding of male violence. These are just a few examples of the harms caused by failing to collect data on sex. Organisations must collate data on sex and trans status separately, and not conflate the two. In its response to the review, the government has made clear it believes the collection of accurate data, including on sex, is vital to research, and to the provision of public services. That is most welcome, but ministers now need to promptly implement its recommendations; health secretary Wes Streeting has already instructed the NHS to stop issuing new health records with inaccurate sex markers for gender-questioning children. It is important that society robustly upholds the Equality Act’s protections for trans people against discrimination. But too many organisations continue to labour under the misapprehension that this means they must behave as though sex is immaterial or unimportant, in a way that causes significant harm and discriminates against other groups. A course correction is much needed and long overdue. Article Name:ON OTHER PAGES Publication:The Observer Start Page:42 End Page:42
Mail on Sunday [1]
Mail on Sunday front page featuring nurse from story below
Nurse branded danger to public – for calling racist transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ So guess who was investigated by the NHS and labelled a danger to the public The Mail on Sunday23 Mar 2025By IAN GALLAGHER CHIEF REPORTER TARGETED: Jennifer Melle feels ‘bullied’ by her woke NHS bosses LIKE all good nurses, Jennifer Melle projects a mixture of benevolence and calm authority. Patients greet her warmly as she glides around St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey, dispensing smiles and soothing words. For as long as she can remember, nursing was her chosen profession. As a schoolgirl newly arrived from Uganda, she was told by her father that Britain was a place where she could fulfil her dreams. Taking nothing for granted, she worked hard, gratefully seizing every opportunity. Now aged 40 and a mother of three, she is universally liked and respected. Not once in her 12-year career has she received a complaint. That, at least, was the case until one day last year when a burly 6ft-plus convicted paedophile, shackled to two prison escorts, shuffled into Ms Melle’s ward and loudly complained about a urinary problem. Legal reasons prevent Patient X’s identification, though why this person, who was jailed for grooming young boys, is afforded such protection will doubtless confound many. Not least because that night, in a fit of rage, Patient X screamed racist abuse at Ms Melle – calling her the N-word three times. She says: ‘It was terrifying. I’d never been called that word before. And I thought I was going to be attacked.’ At one point Patient X lunged towards her, straining against chains. ‘The whole thing – the terrible racial abuse, the aggression, which all happened in front of patients and staff – left me traumatised. And I was only trying to help.’ IT IS what happened next, though, that truly beggars belief. One might imagine that on hearing that one of its black employees was on the receiving end of possibly the most insulting and inflammatory slur in the English language, the diversity-obsessed NHS would back her to the hilt. Instead, her bosses decided she was in the wrong. In the eyes of Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust, the greater sin was that Ms Melle had referred to Patient X – who was born male but now identifies as a woman – as ‘mister’ and ‘he’ during a phone call with a doctor. It was this which prompted Patient X’s aggressive outburst. Afterwards, Ms Melle was investigated and disciplined and, having been labelled a potential risk to the public, now fears losing her job. She wonders what happened to the ‘England of fair play’ of which her father once spoke. After being given a final warning by the trust, she received a letter from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) last month saying it was investigating concerns about her fitness to practise because she ‘referred to a patient in a manner inconsistent with their gender identity’. Yet it is one of the ironies of this case that Patient X had exploited gender identity by posing as a teenage girl online to incite under age boys to perform sex acts. Ms Melle says: ‘I was put at risk, but I am being treated like a criminal. Sadly, if you put your head above the parapet and speak truthfully on these issues in the NHS, the risk is that you will be knocked down, punished severely and demoted. The message to me during the investigation was that I should put up with extreme racism and deny biological reality and my deeply held Christian beliefs for the sake of inclusivity.’ Culture wars’ excesses abound and to some extent we have grown inured to them. But Ms Melle’s experience, say campaigners, is ‘on a whole new disturbing level’. Last night there were demands for urgent government intervention. In an unprecedented legal action, meanwhile, Ms Melle is suing the hospital trust for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches. It is, of course, a case in which the NHS once again risks being accused of sacrificing common sense on the altar of gender ideology, and follows that of eight nurses from Darlington who took their trust to court after being forced to share a changing room with a biological man who identifies as a woman. There is also the ongoing case of the nurse suspended after complaining about a trans medic using her female changing room. Sandie Peggie was put under a disciplinary investigation for a year by bosses at Victoria Hospital, in Kirkcaldy, Fife, after she objected to sharing the facility with Dr Beth Upton. No doubt other battles lie ahead. With so many contradictory voices fighting to be heard, it is easy to see why many find the transgender debate difficult to navigate. Even judges were issued with official advice last month. They were warned it is now ‘extremely inappropriate’ to refer to male rapists who say they identify as women by their preferred pronouns. Yet as it stands criminals are free to pick their gender because the Government refuses to force police to record biological sex. ‘It is a muddle,’ says Ms Melle. ‘I just call people by their first names, that is my way round this.’ That is indeed how she planned to address Patient X whose preferred name – a girl’s name – was written on the white board above her hospital bed on May 22. That day Ms Melle was working a night shift. The previous day she and her colleagues learned that Patient X was arriving for treatment from a men’s prison. Ms Melle was shocked to learn of the patient’s crimes but resolved to deploy the same courtesy, professionalism and care as she would with anybody else. In the event, she wasn’t assigned to Patient X and the start of her shift proved uneventful. At 10pm however a colleague, in some distress, approached Ms Melle saying that Patient X wanted to self-discharge. ‘X was shouting and upsetting other elderly and vulnerable patients on the ward,’ says Ms Melle. A doctor was called for guidance but had not yet responded. As the senior nurse on the ward, Ms Melle decided to take charge. When her colleague finally got through to the doctor, Ms Melle asked to speak to him, taking the call in the corridor just outside Patient X’s room. Overhearing the conversation, Patient X began screaming in protest at Ms Melle’s use of the word ‘mister’. The prisoner shouted: ‘Do not call me mister, I am a woman!’ Ms Melle says the conversation with the doctor needs to be placed in context. Even if she was prepared to use alternative pronouns, she says it would have been absurd because the discussion related to a catheter – for a male – which needed to be removed. ‘This was a real-life medical scenario that required accurate terminology to avoid any doubt between medical professionals,’ she says. Finishing the call, she stepped inside X’s room and found the patient pacing up and down. Ms Melle politely said: ‘I am sorry I cannot refer to you as “her” or “she”, as it’s against my faith and Christian values but I can call you by your name.’ She then began to relay the doctor’s advice, but was met with escalating abuse. ‘Imagine if I called you n ***** ?’, Patient X screamed. ‘How about I call you n ***** ? Yes, black n ***** ’ Ms Melle warned that if the vile abuse persisted, she would have to call security. ‘X lunged at me, getting really close, a few feet away, before the guards intervened,’ she says. Patient X then tried to follow her, shouting: ‘I want your name and NHS number, and I am going to report you to the police for homophobia.’ Though profoundly distressed by the confrontation, Ms Melle, later forced herself to return to X’s room with painkillers which calmed the patient down. It is worth noting here that a white colleague had also referred to Patient X as a male but was not abused for doing so. At the end of her shift, Ms Melle found herself still shaking as she travelled home on the bus. As she replayed the incident in her mind, a colleague who had taken over her shift rang her mobile to say that Patient X had been shouting for her and threatening to make an official complaint. On her next shift, Ms Melle was taken aside by a ward manager and asked to make a statement. She explained she was still feeling traumatised. But the manager insisted that she still had to respect equality and diversity. Ms Melle said she had no issues with people’s sexuality but asked where the respect was for her Christian beliefs and said that she ‘could not deny biological reality’. But an investigation later concluded that ‘the [NMC] code of conduct outlines that in order to treat people as individuals and to uphold their dignity nurses should avoid making assumptions and should recognise diversity and individual choice.’ The code further states that nurses should ‘not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious or moral beliefs) in an inappropriate way. Therefore, although [Ms Melle] felt unable to identity Patient X using the preferred pronouns due to her religion... it could be perceived that [Ms Melle’s] actions could… be seen as a potential breach of the code’. She was accused of ‘not respecting the patient’s preferred identity’ and told her actions and behaviour had ‘fallen short of the trust’s value of respect’. Summoned to a disciplinary hearing in October, Ms Melle was given a final written warning and referred to the NMC. After the incident, she was denied overtime which has affected her financially. With her career, livelihood and reputation now at serious risk, she says she was faced with no alternative but to file a legal claim. She says that the NHS has unlawfully interfered with her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Ms Melle, who says she has never previously had any issues with transgender patients, says: ‘I am devastated by how I have been treated and believe I am being institutionally abused, harassed, bullied and racially discriminated against. Ever since I have expressed my Christian beliefs, I have been a marked woman. ‘I do not feel supported following the racial abuse and threat of physical violence I received from the patient. I remained professional throughout and always treat each and every individual with dignity and respect. My conduct throughout this incident and during my career has been fully compliant with the code.’ Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting her case said: ‘The NHS appears to remain captured by transgender ideology to the point it is prepared to back a convicted paedophile, who was clearly very disturbed and shouting racist comments, over the Christian nurse. ‘We thought we had seen it all when it comes to controversial legal cases on these issues, but what Jennifer is experiencing at the hands of this ideology is off the scale and on a whole new disturbing level. Jennifer loves Jesus and is a talented nurse who should be supported and protected, not investigated and silenced. The trust cannot force compelled speech on their staff and an urgent U-turn and apology is needed. ‘We would ask Wes Streeting, as Health Secretary, to investigate what is happening here. ‘He is already involved in the Darlington nurses’ case, and has previously said he is “horrified” by how they are being treated. It’s time for Government intervention on this matter. ‘It’s time for the Government to stop equality and diversity policies being weaponised in the NHS to punish innocent nurses just doing their job. ‘We will stand with Jennifer for as long as it takes for her to receive justice and with any other nurses who are discriminated against due to this dangerous ideology.’ An Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust spokesperson said: ‘These matters are still subject to ongoing internal proceedings, so it wouldn’t be right for us to comment further.’ I’m being abused, bullied and face racial discrimination It’s time to stop equality policies being weaponised Article Name:Nurse branded danger to public – for calling racist transgender paedophile ‘Mr’ Publication:The Mail on Sunday Author:By IAN GALLAGHER CHIEF REPORTER Start Page:8 End Page:8

24 Monday Total: 2

The Guardian [1]
Brianna Ghey’s mother urges under-16s ban on social media The Guardian24 Mar 2025Mark Brown North of England correspondent ▲ A documentary about the murder of Brianna Ghey is on ITV this week The mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey has said under-16s should be banned from social media, describing it as “an absolute cesspit”. Esther Ghey was speaking at a screening of an ITV documentary which explores the murder of her 16-year-old daughter by two schoolchildren. In the programme, which is to be broadcast on Thursday, Ghey travels to the US and speaks to an insider who tells her people are “defenceless” against the algorithms of social media companies. Brianna was killed by Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe, who were both 15 at the time and had attended the same school as her. They lured Brianna to a park in Cheshire, where she was stabbed 28 times with a hunting knife, on 11 February 2023. Both were jailed for life with a minimum term of 22 years for Jenkinson and 20 for Ratcliffe. The court heard the killers were partly motivated by Brianna’s transgender identity. Brianna, who had thousands of followers on TikTok, struggled with her mental health, which was worsened by accessing eating-disorder and selfharm content on X. From the age of 14, Jenkinson enjoyed watching videos of real killing and torture on the dark web, fantasised about murder and developed an interest in serial killers. Ghey said one of the reasons she had chosen to take part in the documentary was to “get answers” from social media companies about safety. "It is an absolute cesspit." she said of social media. “When you report things, the support isn’t there.” Ghey added: “No matter how much love and compassion you pump into your child when you’re bringing them up, and how much empathy you can teach them, they will go online and they’ll see the way that other people are speaking about other people and they might think that that’s right.” Ghey founded Peace & Mind UK to raise funds to teach mindfulness in schools. Meta, X and TikTok have been contacted for comment. Article Name:Brianna Ghey’s mother urges under-16s ban on social media Publication:The Guardian Author:Mark Brown North of England correspondent Start Page:5 End Page:5
Telegraph [1]
Nurse branded ‘danger to public’ for calling trans paedophile ‘Mr’ The Daily Telegraph24 Mar 2025By Anya Fielding Jennifer Melle had been repeatedly called a n----- by the patient who was a trans prisoner AN NHS nurse was punished after accidentally addressing a transgender paedophile as “Mr”. The paedophile, a patient from a high-security men’s prison, called Jennifer Melle, 40, a “n-----” three times during an aggressive tirade at St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey. But it was Ms Melle who was investigated and disciplined by the hospital in October 2024, with a final warning and a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Now she is filing a legal claim against the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches. Ms Melle said: “Ever since I have expressed my Christian beliefs under extreme pressure, I have been a marked woman.” Last year, the patient, known only as Patient X, arrived from a men’s prison at Ms Melle’s ward to receive treatment for a urinary problem. During the evening shift, a colleague told Ms Melle, the senior nurse on staff, that the patient wanted to self-discharge and a doctor was called for guidance. Ms Melle spoke to the doctor on the phone outside the patient’s room, during which Ms Melle referred to the patient as “Mister” and “he”. She said she was discussing a catheter, for a male person, which needed to be removed, adding: “This was a reallife medical scenario that required accurate terminology to avoid any doubt between medical professionals.” Overhearing Ms Melle, the patient who was born a man but identified as a woman, took issue with the male pronoun and title. The nurse replied that she was “sorry I cannot refer to you as ‘her’ or ‘she’, as it’s against my faith and Christian values but I can call you by your name.” The patient began to verbally abuse the nurse, saying: “Imagine if I called you n-----? How about I call you n-----? Yes, black n------.” The patient also lunged at her despite being restrained and threatened to make a complaint, she said. Ms Melle said: “It was terrifying. I’d never been called that word before. And I thought I was going to be attacked.” Last month, Ms Melle received a letter from the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is assessing her ability to practise. It says its code of conduct states nurses should “not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious or moral beliefs) in an inappropriate way. Therefore, although [Ms Melle] felt unable to identify Patient X using the preferred pronouns due to her religion... it could be perceived that [Ms Melle’s] actions could…be seen as a potential breach of the code”. Ms Melle has denied there was any breach of the code and said that a white colleague also referred to the patient as a male but suffered no abuse or investigation. She said: “My conduct throughout this incident and during my career has been fully compliant with the code. “I have been put at risk, but I am being treated like a criminal. Sadly, if you put your head above the parapet and speak truthfully on these issues in the NHS, the risk is that you will be knocked down, punished severely and demoted.” Christian Legal Centre is supporting Ms Melle’s legal claim. Andrea Williams, the centre’s chief executive, said: “The NHS appears to remain captured by transgender ideology to the point it is prepared to back a convicted paedophile, who was clearly very disturbed ‘The NHS appears to be prepared to back a convicted paedophile over the Christian nurse’ and shouting racist comments, over the Christian nurse. “Jennifer Melle was genuinely doing her best while not wanting to deny her Christian faith and biological reality. “We would ask Wes Streeting, as Health Secretary, to investigate what is happening here. He is already involved in the Darlington nurses’ case, and has previously said he is ‘horrified’ by how they are being treated. It’s time for government intervention on this matter.” Eight nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital are suing the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, their employer, for sexual discrimination and sexual harassment after Rose Henderson, a transgender nurse, was allowed to use a female changing room. A spokesman for Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust said: “These matters are still subject to ongoing internal proceedings.” Article Name:Nurse branded ‘danger to public’ for calling trans paedophile ‘Mr’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Anya Fielding Start Page:6 End Page:6

25 Tuesday Total: 4

Daily Mail [2]
Whatever happened to the England of Fair Play? As NHS nurse is punished for misgendering a paedophile... Daily Mail25 Mar 2025 RACHEL From Complaints says she wants to see a 15 per cent reduction in the size of the civil service, which has swelled from 456,000 to 540,000 in the past five years. I’ll believe that when it actually happens. It has also been revealed that a return to pre-Covid working is being hampered by a lack of desks. Ten Whitehall departments only have room for 53 per cent of staff. If Rachel is sincere about cutting headcount, she should order all WFH employees back to the office and make them take part in a game of musical chairs – to the tune of Things Can Only Get Better. When the music stops, all those without a desk get sacked. Problem solved. WHATEVER happened to the ‘England of Fair Play’? That was the line which leapt out at me from The Mail on Sunday’s report about a nurse disciplined for ‘misgendering’ a convicted paedophile. Mother-of-three Jennifer Melle has been hauled over the coals by the NHS because she referred to the burly 6ft criminal – who was brought into her hospital from a men’s prison shackled to two guards – by the wrong pronouns. Patient X, as we must call this individual ‘for legal reasons’, tried to attack her physically and in a fit of rage racially abused her. Three times the N-word was screamed at Ms Melle, who came to Britain from Uganda as a schoolgirl. Yet she’s the one in deep trouble after referring to Patient X – who was born male but now identifies as a woman – as ‘mister’ and ‘he’ during a phone call with a doctor. As a result, she was disciplined and labelled a potential risk to the public by the NHS Trust which runs St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey. Ms Melle subsequently received a letter from the Nursing and Midwifery Council saying it was investigating concerns about her fitness to practise because she ‘referred to a patient in a manner inconsistent with their gender identity’. She now fears losing her job. I defy anyone to read Ian Gallagher’s brilliant report in the MoS without being overwhelmed by a growing sense of anger and despair. Patient X is a violent, abusive, convicted paedophile, who posed as a teenage girl online to incite under-age boys to ‘We used to pride ourselves on free speech’ perform sex acts. At the hospital, while complaining about a urinary infection, this aggressive individual behaved abominably towards Ms Malle, a popular, dedicated nurse with an unblemished 12-year record of service. Judge for yourself who is the greater ‘risk to the public’ here. Given the current obsession with race, you might have expected the NHS to be outraged over Patient X’s disgusting N-word slur against a loyal employee of African heritage. But no. Quite the opposite. Misgendering clearly trumps racial abuse in the hierarchy of ‘hate speech’. And while Patient X’s identity is protected for inexplicable legal reasons, there’s no such sanction on the NHS naming and shaming Ms Melle. She said: ‘I was put at risk, but I am being treated like a criminal. Sadly, if you put your head above the parapet and speak truthfully on these issues in the NHS, the risk is that you will be knocked down, punished severely and demoted. ‘The message to me was that I should put up with extreme racism and deny biological reality and my deeply held Christian beliefs for the sake of inclusivity.’ Ms Melle said her father taught her about the ‘England of Fair Play’. We used to pride ourselves on our noble tradition of free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion. How many times over the years did you hear the expression: ‘It’s a free country, innit?’ Not any more, it isn’t. Ms Melle is simply the latest victim of the totalitarian woke witch-hunt from which there is apparently no escape. Her Christian beliefs no longer count for anything. In fact, they count against her. While every other religion, particularly Islam, is treated with great reverence, devout Christianity is disdained. The Norwich diocese of the Church of England recently advised against traditional hymns and prayers, which could be considered ‘Eurocentric’. A primary school in Hampshire has just scrapped Easter celebrations in order to ‘respect diverse religious beliefs’. But not Christianity. This kind of Far-Left lunacy used to be confined to the more insane inner London boroughs. Now it’s everywhere in our Through The Looking Glass World, where words mean whatever the arbiters of what is acceptable choose them to mean. Lives and careers are being ruined, as both public and private-sector organisations clamber on board the DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) bandwagon. Daily we read of people losing their jobs for falling foul of the latest fashionable ideology. I could fill this column week in, week out with examples. In one of the latest cases, a scientist was forced out of his job at the Porton Down defence establishment because of his ‘gender critical’ beliefs. His bosses claimed that his belief in biological sex made him a security risk. Peter Wilkins – another devout Christian – said: ‘It’s a scientific organisation, so it shouldn’t be unacceptable to use the phrase biological sex.’ How do you design effective body armour if you don’t acknowledge the physical differences between men and women? But right-think takes precedence over reality. Here’s how deep the woke mind virus has burrowed into every sector. The British Antarctic Survey, which oversees research stations at the South Pole, claimed that believing ‘the most qualified person should get the job’ can be a form of ‘racial harassment’. Meritocracy is a ‘microaggression’. Nurse! What has any of this got to do with an organisation which exists to count penguins and measure ice floes? They’ll be telling us next that polar bears are hideously white. Only yesterday, we learned that a sewage worker had reportedly been sacked by Severn Trent Water for calling Hamas ‘disgusting terrorists’ on an internal staff site. Managers considered his words ‘derogatory’. Yet again the feelings of terrorists and their supporters are elevated above sincerely held opinions – and indeed the truth. So much for free speech. I could go on, but there’s not space here to list every victim of the woke witch-hunt. Suffice to say, it’s all in keeping with the relentless assault on British liberties, designed to control ‘The Far-Left have seized control’ what we say, what we believe, where we go and what we do. As I wrote in another context last week, the social contract has been turned on its head. The FarLeft have seized control of the institutions, including the law. Courts frequently put the ‘rights’ of criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants above those of decent, law-abiding British citizens. From two-tier justice, proHamas marches and the ludicrous Motability scheme, to the billions spent billeting migrants in Lenny Henry hotels, nine million benefit claimants (many with bogus Mental Elf ishoos), police withdrawing from and taking the knee to BLM protesters, you name it, the country is going to hell in a handcart. We are now living in what, a few years ago, would have been considered a parallel universe. One in which a dedicated nurse can be punished for ‘misgendering’ a violent, racist, convicted paedophile. Whatever happened to the England of Fair Play? Gone with the wind. Or, rather, away with the fairies. As The Kinks lamented 40 years ago: There’s no England now. Article Name:Whatever happened to the England of Fair Play? Publication:Daily Mail Start Page:15 End Page:15
The real reason a THIRD of autistic young women now identify as trans or non-binary Daily Mail25 Mar 2025By PROFESSOR GINA RIPPON Professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University By a neuroscientist who’s met many of them should THE ODD GIRL out’. ‘Pretending to be normal’. ‘Standing on the outside looking in’. These are just some of the ways autistic females have described themselves in many powerful personal testimonies about their lives before finally being diagnosed, their deep social unease exposing their desperation to disguise any visible symptoms of their condition. For from a very early age they report struggling to find an identity that ensures they are welcomed and included, rather than ostracised and excluded. They try to camouflage or adopt different ‘masks’ to hide their autistic self. This camouflaging or masking is emerging as a key characteristic of the many autistic women who have, to date, been overlooked in the autism story. It’s an exhausting and stressful strategy, and one which can have a profound impact on their sense of identity and self-understanding. As I explored in the first part of this exclusive series in Good Health last week, blinkered clinicians have long insisted autism was something just for ‘the boys’, with many quoting as ‘proof’ the statistic that boys were four times more likely to be diagnosed as autistic than girls, and relying on skewed assessments that viewed autism through an almost entirely male lens. This belief has had a damaging impact on autistic females: girls on the spectrum can feel that they face a ‘double whammy’, with the world dismissing their autistic identity because they are not male, and powerful social forces enforcing a rigid view of what they should be like because they are a girl. One young girl with autism, Grace, eloquently described the difficulties she had: ‘All girls are under immense pressure to fit in and to be a certain way according to what they are told being a girl means. It’s even worse for girls with autism because they are also trying to fit in with what being a human means.’ I’m a professor of cognitive neuroimaging who uses state-ofthe-art brain-imaging techniques to investigate autistic brains. BUT I wanted to know more about the autistic girls and women who, because of the ‘boys-only’ bias of autism science, had rarely appeared in my studies, and who had been diagnosed much later than the males, often been misdiagnosed with everything from bipolar disorder to anorexia. So I got out from under my scanner and asked them: ‘What is it like to be you?’ The answers, across all ages, almost universally spoke of navigating difficulties with social expectations, of constant attacks on their selfesteem, of being bullied or called weird; of feeling like an outsider. It revealed the intense importance to these females of belonging, of needing an identity, of trying to find a place for themselves in a society where they didn’t seem to fit in, no matter how hard they tried. And then the positive impact of at last discovering they were autistic: the profound sense of relief that, at last, they had a true identity, they had ‘found their tribe’, where their lives and experiences finally made sense. The question then arises: if a key aspect of autistic experience is of uncertainty about your identity, about who you are, and realising that you don’t live up to the expectations of a world that has inflexible views of what you be like, then this could well extend to wider questions of self-identity, including gender. Could this be why there are higher rates of gender diversity in autistic populations than in non-autistic populations? Research shows that rates of autism are between three and six times higher in transgender and gender-diverse populations than in other populations. Up to 15 per cent of autistic adults identify as trans or nonbinary, but the rates are higher among those assigned female at birth, possibly over 30 per cent. Understanding this intersection of autism with gender identity is more than just an academic point, it is a real and live health issue: emerging evidence has found that being both transgender and autistic is associated with higher rates of mental health problems. They need our care, help and sympathy. When academics from the Centre for Applied Autism Research at the University of Bath interviewed autistic adults about their experiences, they described their distress in living in a world which was not accepting of either gender diversity or neurodiversity. Some of those assigned female had very negative experiences around the ‘trappings’ of being female, such as sensory dysphoria – physical discomfort associated with autism-related sensitivities, caused by the stereotypical female clothes they were ‘supposed’ to wear, such as woolly tights or frills. They also report sensory challenges around puberty including periods, such as dealing with the smell of blood and growing body hair. One of those interviewed commented: ‘Being autistic is like everybody else has got the rulebook and you didn’t, so you can understand why gender would come into it because that was in the rulebook you do not get.’ Autistic girls report a lifetime of being bullied and of being made to feel they don’t belong. Add to this mix the popular conception of autism as a male thing and girls on the spectrum may well feel that they want to be aligned to a different sex, or even to none at all. The drive to belong is as powerful in autistic girls as it is in typical girls, if not more so, so seeking a community different from the one that appears to reject them is understandable. The hyper-femininity that characterises social media and marketing may also play a part. If the alleged characteristics associated with your ‘assigned’ female identity – be it having a serious make-up habit or liking the colour pink – doesn’t chime with what you think best defines you, then you may well seek a different identity altogether, especially in order to belong to a group you might identify with: i.e. males. The higher levels of gender identity non-conformity among autistic females could well be a response to this. There are possible biological explanations, too. NEUROSCIENTISTS are starting to compare brain activity patterns in individuals with both autism and gender identity diversity to explore potential areas of overlap. One 2023 US study focused on something known as the ‘default mode network’, sometimes known as the daydreaming network. This is when you’re allegedly not engaged in any particular task, but are actually almost invariably thinking about yourself, or real or imagined events involving yourself. Using brain scans, researchers looked at the patterns of connections within this network, and between other brain networks, in 45 transgender youths – some non-autistic, others autistic, or with high levels of autistic traits but who had not been diagnosed. The researchers found evidence of greater connectivity in this network in the brains of autistic transgender individuals, which they interpreted as reflecting higher levels of self-monitoring – an ongoing quest for some kind of identity, marked both by persistent self-reflection or repeated self-comparisons with those around you. Overall, this pattern was more closely associated with those assigned female at birth. This is consistent with other studies showing much more evidence of self-monitoring in females generally during tasks that activate our ‘social’ brain, which helps us navigate social interactions (our social satnav). This part of the brain undergoes dramatic reorganisation during adolescence, and is the time when the signs of autism may become more marked in previously unidentified autistic girls. Changes in their adolescent brains, together with a vastly more complex set of social demands, undermine the previously hard-won protective camouflage that kept these girls under the radar during their primary school years – which potentially makes their longing for a social ‘identity’ even more pressing. Issues of identity have long been overlooked in autistic populations, but they clearly have enormous significance, particularly for females who have been overlooked by the current diagnostic process. For as well as being deprived of help and support, they may be deprived of an identity. ■ ADAPTED from The Lost Girls Of Autism by Gina Rippon (Macmillan, £22), to be published on April 3. © Gina Rippon 2025. To order a copy for £19.80 (offer valid until April 5, 2025; UK P&P free on orders over £25) go to mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3176 2937. Article Name:The real reason a THIRD of autistic young women now identify as trans or non-binary Publication:Daily Mail Author:By PROFESSOR GINA RIPPON Professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University By a neuroscientist who’s met many of them should Start Page:39 End Page:39
Telegraph [2]
Gender-neutral raccoon causes Cbeebies row Campaigners say use of ‘their’ pronoun for cartoon will ‘confuse’ audience still learning to speak The Daily Telegraph25 Mar 2025By Daily Telegraph Reporter The BBC has denied that Wren the raccoon is non-binary PARENTS have attacked a Cbeebies show for featuring what appears to be a gender-neutral raccoon. In the episocde of the award-winning Hey Duggee, which targets five-yearolds, a raccoon called Wren and “their” siblings is introduced. The gender-neutral language has been criticised as being inappropriate and confusing for children who are still learning how to speak. Hey Duggee, produced by Studio AKA in association with BBC Studios, features Duggee, a cartoon dog, who runs a clubhouse with five “squirrels” – Bettie, Roly, Tag, Norrie and Happy. In the episode Sibling Badge, first shown last year, Roly discovers he is getting a new brother or sister. The squirrels then meet different animals and their siblings. Dog Arlo is shown with “his” siblings, monkey Lucy with “her” siblings, yak Rami appears with “his” siblings. It then adds: “And this is Wren and their siblings.” The words “they” and “their” are commonly used as gender-neutral pronouns, particularly for those who identify as non-binary. The BBC has denied that the character is non-binary. The episode by Jo Clegg, the writer behind dozens of episodes as well as popular shows Go Jetters and Pip and Posy, has now come under question. Shelley Charlesworth, researcher for Transgender Trend, a Uk-based campaign group, described the episode as “so inappropriate”. She said: “Its target audience is still learning to speak and this only confuses. Language skills and accurate grammar take years to learn. Most children are still making mistakes up to the age of eight. There is no way that a child of three to five can understand non-binary they/them pronouns, and using these neo-pronouns takes no account of child development.” She accused the BBC of breaking its accuracy and impartiality code, adding the language “stems from adult political activism”. One parent who saw the programme accused the show’s language of “sounding weird”, adding: “The use of ‘their’ in that particular bit just stuck out to me. There was no reason to use it as all the pronouns before were gendered. It just sounded weird. I don’t think it was an accident.” A BBC spokesman said: “We take our responsibility to our young audience and their families very seriously and take great to care that all content is appropriate. Everyone is welcome at Cbeebies and in this case Wren the raccoon is not a non-binary character.” Hey Duggee was previously criticised for using the term “fireman” by the London Fire Brigade after a veteran female firefighter had to explain why the term was wrong to a young relative. The BBC said at the time “Cbeebies strives to avoid stereotyping and looks to celebrate strong female role models”. A spokesman added: “Within the wider context of the Hey Duggee Dressing Up Badge episode animated characters are shown dressing up in costumes depicting roles such as a plumber, pirate, knight and farmer but these roles are occupied by girl characters as well as boys, is done without comment and infers these roles are all gender-neutral.” Grant Orchard, the series creator, said: “We don’t think about gender at all. It wasn’t a conscious decision to make it a gender-neutral show,” adding “kids’ personalities are not allocated by their sex”. Article Name:Gender-neutral raccoon causes Cbeebies row Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daily Telegraph Reporter Start Page:7 End Page:7

26 Wednesday Total: 4

The Guardian [1]
Cheek swabs adopted to ‘protect female category’ The Guardian26 Mar 2025Sean Ingle Sebastian Coe seeks to guarantee ‘integrity of female women’s sport’ Sebastian Coe has vowed to “doggedly protect the female category and do whatever it takes to protect it” after World Athletics became the first sport to introduce DNA tests for elite female athletes. Lord Coe insisted that the new policy, which he said would involve a one-time cheek swab or dry blood test that was noninvasive, was necessary to protect fairness in the female category. World Athletics hopes to have testing in place in time for its outdoor world championships in September. “We’re not just talking about the integrity of female women’s sport, but actually guaranteeing it,” said Coe, president of World Athletics. “And this, we feel, is a really important way of providing confidence and maintaining that absolute focus on the integrity of competition.” Since 2023 World Athletics has banned transgender women from the female category, citing scientific research that found trans women retained an advantage in strength, endurance, power and lung capacity, even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone. However the new rules will also bar athletes with a difference of sex development (DSD) – who are reported female at birth but undergo the physiological benefits of male puberty – from the female category. World Athletics said it had taken the decision after research showed that the male advantage exists before puberty. It said the performance gap from men to women was 3% to 5% in running events, and higher in throwing and jumping events. “The process is very straightforward frankly,” Coe said, before confirming that World Athletics was looking at cheek/buccal swab tests and blood spot tests. “Neither of these are invasive. They are necessary and they will be done to absolute medical standards.” Coe said World Athletics would be prepared to go to the court of arbitration for sport, where it won a case against Caster Semenya in 2019, to defend its proposals. “We’ve been to the court of arbitration on our DSD regulations,” he said. “They’ve been upheld, and they’ve again been upheld after appeal. We will doggedly protect the female category, and we’ll do whatever is necessary to do it.” That may have been a pointed reference to the incoming International Olympic Committee president, Kirsty Coventry, who has talked since her election victory over Coe about setting up a taskforce to look at the issue after previously stating that “protecting the female category and female sports is paramount”. Coventry has also said lessons needed to be learned from the controversial women’s Olympic boxing tournament in Paris last year, when the Algerian Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting of Chinese Taipei won gold. Both had been barred from competing at the 2023 world championships by the International Boxing Association after failing sex tests. World Athletics will not be lifting the bans imposed on athletes from Russia and Belarus after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Article Name:Cheek swabs adopted to ‘protect female category’ Publication:The Guardian Author:Sean Ingle Start Page:39 End Page:39
Telegraph [3]
Woke institutions retreating on trans issues should apologise The Daily Telegraph26 Mar 2025Suzanne Moore Elton John once sang that “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”: he was referring to a love affair gone wrong, but those words seem apt when we now see all the backpedalling going on around trans rights. It is obvious that certain trans activists, and those who have trans-ed their own children, will never back down from their cult-like beliefs that a mystical “gender identity” is always more important than biological sex. But now that this belief lies in tatters in mainstream thinking, we are in the era of those who promoted trans ideology stepping back from it in awkward regret, trying to rewrite their history. For years we’ve had to contend with woefully inaccurate news reporting when it comes to trans-related crimes. In a story about a registered sex offender who was born a man being jailed for recording hundreds of men using the toilet in Aldi, the BBC, Metro and the local press all referred to the perpetrator in headlines as a woman, or she, alongside a picture of a man. It was enough to make you roll your eyes. Even in court, this person was referred to as “she”. A lot has been said about media distrust. But this constant reporting of the crimes of men, but attributed to women, is but one of the issues that the public has finally become alert to. The unfairness of maleborn trans competitors in women’s sport is another. That so many of our public institutions have gone along with this nonsense is evidence of the power of lobby groups. It is also an indication of how poorly valued women’s rights are. None of the institutions that have now retreated from the vice-like grip of these campaigning organisations (Stonewall, Mermaids) have apologised for being in thrall to this dangerous ideology. In employment tribunal after tribunal, women who have refused to say that men are women have been bullied out of their jobs but won their cases. Who has said sorry to them? Meanwhile, those interested in reality have been proved right by the Cass Review. Guess what? Puberty blockers that inevitably lead to cross-sex hormones are not the best way to treat psychologically distressed kids. Now we have the Sullivan Review, which emphasises the importance of recording biological To mistake a fetish for a civil rights movement was a gross error sex and gender as two different things. This matters for health and criminal records. To muddle them does no favours to trans people. A trans man still needs cervical smears, a trans woman prostate checks. Coming up are a spate of books which try to pretend that the woke have actually “woken up”. They range from Ash Sarkar’s Minority Rule (the identity politics Ash pushed were unappealing to many) to Deborah Frances-White’s Six Conversations We’re Scared to Have (hint: she is still scared). Yet both show they cannot detach themselves from trans ideology because it is still their core belief. It was always bizarre to be lectured by American feminists on how trans rights were exactly the same as reproductive rights. This position is finally being questioned by brave detransitioners and by those looking at the actual medical evidence, which has made so many European countries pull back from medicalising children. In truth, this “movement” was always a forced coalition between male fetishists and distressed teenage girls. If gender identity was someone’s true identity suppressed for years, why do we find it mostly in middle-aged men who finally get to wear frilly knickers? Was this absurdity not obvious? We do not suddenly have a generation of middle-aged women declaring themselves to be men. The best we can manage is some attentionseeking actresses having a haircut and declaring themselves “non-binary”. To mistake a fetish for a civil rights movement was a gross error. Trans beliefs have been deeply embedded into academia, the Civil Service, the NHS, the arts: so many of our institutions have abandoned critical thinking in favour of fashion. Yet most of the public have never bought into this ideology. Most of us have wanted the gender dysphoric to get the help they need, but want women to retain their own rights, spaces and language. There is now a long walk back from this idiocy. The public are not fools. No, female medics should not have to get undressed in front of biological males. No, women should not get punched in the face by those who refuse to take a simple sex test. No, a nurse dealing with a huge paedophile should not be racially abused and reported because she didn’t use the “right” pronouns. I don’t expect any apologies for losing work and “friendships” for arguing that biology is real. But there are many, many good folks who refuse to be airbrushed out of history. They stood up when it mattered. And you may not believe me but when I see what is going on in America, one of the saddest aspects of all this is that those most harmed by ramming trans ideology down everyone’s throat have been trans people themselves. The backlash they now face is the result of the liberal failure to think for itself. For that, someone really does need to say sorry. Article Name:Woke institutions retreating on trans issues should apologise Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Suzanne Moore Start Page:2 End Page:2
Use clean blade to self-harm, trans charity tells children The Daily Telegraph26 Mar 2025By Mark Macaskill A TRANSGENDER charity allegedly trained volunteers to advise self-harming children to use “clean razor blades”. LGBT Youth Scotland was reported to the charity regulator by a whistleblower who claims they were given “shocking and callous” instructions on how to deal with young people who were intentionally harming themselves. Instead of discouraging children from hurting themselves, it is alleged that managers said that if they were arming themselves as a “coping mechanism”, it would be wrong to “take that away from them”. Instead, volunteers were allegedly told “we have to ask them if they are using clean razor blades”. The whistleblower claimed that when they challenged the policy in 2023, they were “dismissed” by managers who “didn’t see the issue” and defended self-harm as children “might not have any other ways of coping”. “I found this shocking and callous. I think it’s reckless to suggest to a mentally ill young person that they should be using clean razor blades,” the whistleblower told The Times. “This could easily be misunderstood as a sign of encouragement that they should be engaging in acts of self harm. “Volunteers are not mental health professionals and should, in my opinion, not be asking people if they are using ‘clean razors’ to carry out acts of self-injury.” The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) said it had “engaged” with the charity as a result of the complaint on self-harm and that the organisation had “reviewed” its policies. A spokesman added: “We have not needed to use our formal powers in this case and so are not required to publish a report. Following our engagement with the charity, it has amended its objects and purposes to be more accessible to the public and better reflect the requirements of charity law. “Additionally, it has reviewed and updated key policies. We are satisfied with these actions in response to concerns and have concluded our inquiries.” The “concern” raised about its stance on self-harm was among 13 disclosed to The Times following a Freedom of Information request. An LGBT Youth Scotland spokesman said: “We have never provided direct services to primary-aged pupils. Our work with primary schools has been focused exclusively on offering workbased training for staff to support inclusive environments for LGBT young people.” Article Name:Use clean blade to self-harm, trans charity tells children Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Mark Macaskill Start Page:7 End Page:7
Transgender row university handed £585k free speech fine The Daily Telegraph26 Mar 2025By Natasha Leake and Daniel Martin PHILOSOPHER and writer Kathleen Stock’s former university has been fined £585,000 after it was found to have “failed to uphold” freedom of speech and academic freedom. In a landmark ruling, the Office for Students (OFS) found “a chilling effect arose” from the University of Sussex’s transgender policy which left staff and students feeling “self-censored” and unable to express “lawful views.” The higher education regulator said an investigation found “significant and serious breaches” of free speech and governance issues at the institution. The probe was prompted by the resignation of Prof Stock, an expert in analytic philosophy, from the University of Sussex in October 2021 after she faced death threats for her gendercritical beliefs. At the time, students erected posters around campus and called on the university to dismiss her. An investigation was launched after protests for Prof Stock’s dismissal and in a finding out today there was “no evidence to suggest that Prof Stock’s speech during her employment at the university was unlawful”. The OFS said: “Staff and students may have self-censored as a result of the policy because they were concerned about being in breach of the policy and potentially facing disciplinary action for expressing lawful views.” It added that Prof Stock was an example of the “chilling effect”, as she “became more cautious” about her statements on gender at the university. The OFS said: “Prof Stock said that she became more cautious in her expression of gender critical views as a result of the policy. “There were some views she did not feel able to express, and therefore teach, despite those views being lawful. Other staff and students may have felt similarly unable to express these, or other, lawful views.” Prof Stock is now a founding fellow at the University of Austin, in Texas, a new “anti-cancel culture” university. The investigation also found that the university “may not have complied, or acted compatibly, with some of their legal obligations” in relation to the university’s transgender policy” Commenting on the investigation, Arif Ahmed, Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the OFS, said: “These are significant and serious breaches of the Ofs’s requirements.” Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, told The Telegraph: “It is gratifying to see Professor Kathleen Stock vindicated after sustained bullying and harassment drove her out of her job.” Sasha Roseneil, vice chancellor of the University of Sussex, said the fine was “wholly disproportionate” and that the university had defended Prof Stock’s right to express “lawful beliefs”. She said the ruling made it “virtually impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying”, or “to protect groups subject to harmful propaganda”. Article Name:Transgender row university handed £585k free speech fine Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Natasha Leake and Daniel Martin Start Page:9 End Page:9

27 Thursday Total: 8

The Times [4]
Professor endured smears and ostracism in ‘medieval’ ordeal Sanchez Manning, Nicola Woolcock Kathleen Stock quit after aggressive behaviour from students who labelled her transphobic. Police were so alarmed she was advised to employ security guards Next image › Vindication, elation and relief are perhaps just a few of the feelings that washed over Kathleen Stock when she received the news that the University of Sussex had been fined almost £600,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The journey to this ruling handed down by the Office for Students has, however, come at significant personal cost for the philosophy professor. Stock resigned from the university more than three years ago after a sustained campaign of bullying and harassment over her views on transgender issues. Her battle to express opinions that some might disagree with but which others regarded as entirely reasonable had been long and traumatic. Her tribulations began as far back as 2018 when she decided to question in an online article the government’s proposed policy to allow transgender people to legally self-identify as their chosen gender. She soon found herself on the receiving end of angry accusations of transphobia and bigotry, as have so many others since who have challenged the notion of men being able to simply declare themselves to be women. Stock has been clear that she is not in any way against transgender women or indeed the Gender Recognition Act, the law that allows people to be legally classified as the opposite sex to the one they were born. However, she does believe there should be some form of “gatekeeping” in this process. She also believes that society should be free to examine the effects that prioritising the concept of “gender identity” over biological sex may have, particularly in terms of the costs to the rights of women and the health of children who say they wish to change gender. In December 2019 Stock cemented her reputation as a sceptic of certain tenets of trans activism by co-signing a letter, along with more than 20 other academics, accusing the charity Stonewall of suppressing academic freedom by encouraging a “censorious” approach to gender identity. After going public with her views, she quickly became enemy number one on the campus where she was lecturing. There were soon students brandishing placards declaring “Transphobia now in STOCK at Sussex”, condemnations from the students’ union over tolerating “hate”, and attempts to have her sacked, along with a steady stream of online abuse. The smears and ostracism, from both students and her colleagues, continued until October 2021 when she was informed by police that matters had deteriorated to the point where she might need to have security guards on campus. Officers alerted her to stickers being put around the university’s buildings bearing aggressive messages such as “transphobic s*** that comes out of Kathleen Stock’s mouth”. The police advised that it could be time to take precautions to avoid potentially more serious attacks from students. “The police have advised me to have cameras on my front door,” Stock said in an interview. “They have put a marker on my phone, if I phone 999 there is an automatic callout to my house. I am vulnerable on campus. The police implied that I would need security guards accompanying me to go back on campus.” It emerged that an anonymous group had been formed with the express aim of getting Stock fired. Every time she walked on campus an increasingly disturbed Stock was faced with dozens of posters plastered across the walls, carrying messages such as “Kathleen Stock makes trans students feel unsafe” and “we’re not paying £9,250 a year for transphobia”. On other occasions masked protesters held up banners under burning flares saying “Stock Out”, as a deluge of critics lambasted her online under the hashtag #ShameOnSussexUni. Months later, hundreds of her fellow academics signed an open letter criticising the decision to award Stock an OBE for her services to education. The missive, which garnered more than 600 signatures, concluded that her contribution to the gender debate had been “transphobic fearmongering” rather than “valuable scholarship”. Stock announced, in the same month she was advised to employ security, that she was stepping down from her post. She tweeted: “This has been an absolutely horrible time for me and my family. I’m putting it behind me now.” However, speaking later about her experience, the academic told Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour: “I don’t know if I can explain it but you have to imagine yourself at your workplace — all eyes are on you, all fingers seem to be pointing at you, it’s like a medieval experience. At that point I wasn’t scared so much as incredibly distressed.” After the fallout around Stock’s resignation, Sussex’s vice-chancellor, Adam Tickell, wrote to staff saying that the university had “vigorously” defended her right to “exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind”. Those words ring somewhat hollow now in light of the regulator’s decision to impose the £585,000 penalty — the highest yet recorded — on the University of Sussex for its “serious and significant” failings relating to free speech and equality in Stock’s case. There has been a more than three-year wait for this outcome. Universities failing on free speech are warned of seven-figure fines Nicola Woolcock - Education Editor Universities could face fines of millions of pounds for free speech breaches, the higher education regulator has warned. The University of Sussex has been fined more than half a million pounds for failing to uphold free speech in the wake of the departure of the philosophy professor Kathleen Stock — a record amount. But the university was given a significant discount because it was the first infraction of its kind, the Office for Students (OfS) said. Instead it could have been asked to pay more than £3 million. Other universities are likely to incur much higher fines if they fall foul of the regulator in a similar way. Stock said that many more universities had policies that included the clauses that the OfS had ruled against. However, Sussex’s vice-chancellor, Professor Sasha Roseneil, said the OfS inquiry had been flawed, politically motivated and “Kafkaesque”, adding that university staff had been forbidden to talk about the case until the ruling, affecting their own free speech. She said this meant that she could not give evidence to the House of Lords on the issue. In a briefing, the OfS was unclear about whether it had spoken in person to anyone at the university, other than Stock, who was accused of transphobia because of her views on sex and gender and left the university in 2021 after a three-year campaign of harassment. The OfS said that there had been “serious” failings and defended its investigation, which was conducted mostly in writing. Arif Ahmed, the regulator’s first director of free speech, said: “We have found that the University of Sussex’s trans and non-binary equality policy statement meant that students or staff wishing to express or discuss lawful views, including gender-critical views, could have been concerned about breaching that policy and facing potential disciplinary action.” The OfS spent three and a half years investigating the university. It said that the university’s governing documents did not uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. It also found failings in the university’s management and governance processes. These constituted two breaches of the conditions of registration set out by the OfS. Stock said: “I’m very pleased to see [the ruling],” adding that “there is no doubt in my mind that these policies chill lawful speech”. However, the university described the regulator’s findings as “egregious” and said that the ruling would prevent universities from tackling harassment. Arguing that the OfS was “perpetuating the culture wars”, Sussex said it would mount a legal challenge. Don’t rely on census for trans data, ONS advises The latest census should not be used to estimate the size of the trans population in England and Wales, the official statistics body has said. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has for the first time advised against using some figures published as part of the 2021 census regarding gender identity, amid concerns some respondents had not understood what they were being asked. The ONS first acknowledged in 2023 there might have been some confusion among people answering the gender identity question and last year confirmed a downgrading of the data. The statistics body said last September it had requested that the estimates from the 2021 survey be reclassified from being official statistics to “official statistics in development”. That census was the first time the voluntary question on gender identity was included in the wide-ranging survey, which takes place every ten years. The question asked: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” It showed that 262,000 people in England and Wales, 0.5 per cent of the population aged 16 and over, reported that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. In the latest update, the ONS divided its advice on using the gender figures into three categories related to how much confidence it had in the statistics. In its first category, it said the 2021 estimates could be used to provide a “broad indication” of the overall size of the trans population across England and Wales. However, in its second category it said there was a “high level of uncertainty” if using the estimates to make geographical comparisons of the proportions of trans people between local authorities, regions and at country level for England and Wales. It also urged caution when estimating the proportion of the trans populations in different ethnicities and religious groups. But in its strictest category, the ONS said the 2021 estimates “should not be used” to estimate the numbers of trans populations in local areas. It added that these estimates should not be used to provide insights into the relationship between identifying as trans and having a lower level of English language proficiency or different qualification levels. The ONS said it was engaging in work across the UK “to build a robust and detailed understanding of user and respondent needs on the topics of sex and gender identity”. It added that those findings would be published later this year.
Lesson Not Learnt Sussex University is still failing to atone for its mistreatment of Kathleen Stock Great learning is not necessarily accompanied by great wisdom. If proof is needed it resides in the response of Professor Sasha Roseneil, the vicechancellor of Sussex University, to the fine levied against the institution this week by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). The record £585,000 penalty is the price Sussex must pay for failing to uphold that most basic obligation of an academic institution: the protection of free speech. The finding relates to Professor Kathleen Stock, who was hounded out of her job in the philosophy department in 2021 for daring to state the fact that biological sex is immutable. In doing so, Ms Stock invited the wrath of Sussex’s small but vociferous trans lobby, backed by of all organisations the University and College Union, the body meant to support academics like her. The result was three years of bullying and harassment by trans extremists culminating in Ms Stock requiring the protection of a bodyguard when visiting her workplace. The nadir was reached when hundreds of academics, oblivious of the irony of their position, castigated the philosopher for language that marginalised trans people. How many now would put their name to such a ridiculous document? And Ms Roseneil? Instead of atoning for the treatment of Ms Stock, she has attacked the OfS for finding that the vendetta waged by trans activists, and tolerated by the university, resulted in a “chilling effect” on free speech and “self censorship”. Unrepentant, Sussex is appealing. Credit to Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, for supporting the OfS and reminding students that, horror of horrors, they must expect to be challenged about their views. Sussex says the penalty reignites the “culture wars”. It does no such thing. It is about truth and the right to speak it. One doesn’t require a PhD to understand that.
Daily Mail [2]
Our 262,000 trans figure in the latest census was wrong, ONS finally admits Daily Mail27 Mar 2025By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent THE number of transgender people in England and Wales was ‘incorrectly recorded’ in the latest census, officials admitted for the first time yesterday. Bosses at the Office for National Statistics said data suggesting there were 262,000 trans individuals ‘should not be used’ as an exact reflection of the population. It comes after a watchdog last year downgraded the ONS figures and said they would no longer be recognised as ‘accredited official statistics’. The 2021 census – the first to count trans people – asked: ‘Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?’ The Office for Statistics Regulation found that people whose first language was not English were four times more likely to say they were trans than English speakers. The watchdog added the ONS had been ‘closed and at times defensive’ following criticism of its data and had been focused on ‘defending’ its estimates. Yesterday the ONS admitted that some people were ‘incorrectly recorded as trans’ in the 2021 census. But due to the ‘limitations with the data’, it was unable to ‘draw conclusions about the scale or effect of this’. Despite this the ONS said it had ‘Shameful and costly debacle’ ‘high confidence’ that the 2021 data could still be used to provide a ‘broad indication’ of the overall size of the trans population. But it said more detailed estimates of trans populations ‘should not be used’ and added: ‘The census 2021 gender identity estimates should not be used to provide estimates of the sizes of the population who identified as each of trans man, trans woman, non-binary, and all other gender identities.’ It comes after a government-commissioned review last week found that the conflation of sex and gender has become ‘widespread’ in official data over the past decade. The Sullivan Review found that a ‘partisan climate’ exists within public bodies, including the ONS, and called for the Government to carry out a ‘review of activism and impartiality’ in those bodies. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human-rights charity Sex Matters, said: ‘Four years on and the ONS is still having to dedicate time and resources to untangle the mess generated by the confusing gender question in the 2021 census. ‘The ONS repeatedly ignored expert input given in good faith that would have avoided this shameful and costly debacle and instead took advice from ideologically driven activist groups.’ Article Name:Our 262,000 trans figure in the latest census was wrong, ONS finally admits Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:23 End Page:23
Telegraph [2]
Parents shouldn’t have to explain ‘gender identity’ to five-year-olds The Daily Telegraph27 Mar 2025 A very peculiar row has erupted over a BBC programme for small children. Apparently, some parents believe that Hey Duggee – a popular cartoon series about cute little animals – has been subtly promoting gender ideology to its audience of five-year-olds. They base this suspicion on the fact that, in one episode, a raccoon is referred to using gender-neutral pronouns. Other animal characters are given the pronouns “his” or “her”. Yet the raccoon, mysteriously, is given the pronoun “their”. This, the parents infer, suggests that the raccoon identifies as “non-binary”. For its part, the BBC has dismissed these claims. “Wren the raccoon,” insists a spokesman, “is not a non-binary character.” Hmm. All I can say is: I should hope not. Introducing a “nonbinary” character would be totally inappropriate for such young viewers. And it wouldn’t be much fun for those viewers’ parents, either. Because it could prompt some terribly awkward conversations. Just imagine… “Daddy, what’s ‘non-binary’?” “Well. Er. Let’s see. Um… ‘Non-binary’ is a type of gender identity.” “What’s ‘gender identity’?” “Good question. Very, very good question. Er… Think of it like a special sort of game, played by grown-ups. What happens is, a man says he’s now a lady – and then everyone else has to agree, or they get in lots of trouble and lose their jobs. Especially ladies. Men can sometimes get away with saying they think the man who’s now a lady is still a man. But if ladies say they don’t want the man who’s now a lady to take his, or rather her, clothes off in the ladies’ changing room, everybody gets very cross and shouts at them.” “I see. But what’s ‘non-binary’?” “Well. ‘Non-binary’ is someone who says, ‘I’m not a man or a lady.’ Or, in this case, ‘I’m not a man raccoon or a lady raccoon.’ So, instead of calling the raccoon ‘he’ or ‘she’, you have to call it ‘they’. As if it were several raccoons, instead of just one.” Wouldn’t be easy, would it? Especially if your five-year-old goes on to repeat your explanation to other children at school. Because the teachers might deem your phrasing to be insufficiently inclusive. In which case, both you and your five-year-old will probably be spending the rest of the year in detention. Article Name:Parents shouldn’t have to explain ‘gender identity’ to five-year-olds Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:7 End Page:7
Scots NHS men’s lavatories given ‘period product bins’ The Daily Telegraph27 Mar 2025By Simon Johnson A SCOTTISH NHS trust has boasted that its new trans policy will raise awareness of “menstruation in men’s toilets”, The Telegraph can reveal. NHS Highland has recently signed off a blueprint for allowing transgender doctors and nurses to self-identify their gender in hospitals and clinics. The document, seen by The Telegraph, says that trans staff should use lavatories and changing rooms that they “feel are most appropriate for them”. The policy says they can start using facilities for their “affirmed gender” at any time from when they start to “socially transition, irrespective of the progress of surgical procedures”. This means that a male-bodied doctor could use women’s changing rooms and lavatories, and vice versa, without having undertaken any gender-affirming medical treatments. Other “adjustments” that could be required to implement the policy in single-sex facilities include “period product bins” in men’s lavatories. An accompanying equality impact assessment said the “indirect positive benefits” could include “raising awareness of menstruation in men’s toilets, which will positively impact gender equality issues more widely”. Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, policy analysts specialising in gender issues, said it was hard to read the NHS Highland document as “anything other than an activist manifesto.” Dr Kath Murray said: “It fails to mention that separate-sex provision for toilets, washing and changing is a non-negotiable right, protected by law.” An NHS Highland spokesman said: “Our local policy was developed in partnership with staff and is current. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis taking into account relevant guidance and legislation.” Article Name:Scots NHS men’s lavatories given ‘period product bins’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Simon Johnson Start Page:10 End Page:10

28 Friday Total: 4

The Guardian [1]
University taking legal action over free speech fine The Guardian28 Mar 2025Richard Adams Education editor PHOTOGRAPH: STUART ROBINSON/ UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX Sasha Roseneil, the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex, told the Guardian the Office for Students has ‘just wanted to prosecute, even persecute us’ The University of Sussex is taking legal action to overturn the record fine levied by England’s higher education regulator, with Sussex accusing the regulator of seeking to “persecute” it rather than solve problems. This week the Office for Students said it would fine Sussex £585,000 for two breaches of its regulations related to freedom of speech and governance. This was after a three-and-ahalf-year investigation into the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, the target of protests at Sussex over her views on gender identification and transgender rights. Sasha Roseneil, who joined Sussex as vice-chancellor a year after the investigation began, said she was initially shocked by the OfS’s judgment but is confident that the courts will find in Sussex’s favour. “I think our position is extremely strong, and I think they will lose a judicial review,” Roseneil said. Sussex intends to challenge the size of the fine – 15 times larger than any previous penalty levied by the OfS – through a tribunal, and also seek a judicial review of the OfS’s judgment. Roseneil revealed to the Guardian that Sussex had substantially overturned sections of the OfS’s interim judgment, delivered last year, which would have fined the university £1m for a string of additional allegations. Roseneil said: “The provisional decision was much, much worse, and we rebutted it … We sent back a 2,000-page response, and they have reduced the fine from the provisional decision. They haven’t explained why they’ve dropped any of it but one has to imagine they realised that they weren’t on strong legal grounds.” An OfS spokesperson said: “We are confident in the decisions made in this case and will vigorously defend any legal action.” Roseneil said the OfS had refused to meet with Sussex’s leadership or interview those involved, with the exception of Stock. Instead the OfS relied on tens of thousands of documents and papers. Roseneil said that when she arrived at Sussex in 2022 she sought a meeting with OfS executives to discuss the investigation but was turned down. Arif Ahmed, the OfS’s director for freedom of speech, defended the regulator: “There may have been occasions where [Sussex] wanted to see somebody, and in fact that was done in writing instead, I’m quite sure that could well have happened. But the engagement would nevertheless have happened in the sense that we communicated with them and they communicated with us.” But Roseneil said the OfS has refused to tell Sussex if its amended policies meet its conditions: “We have been up for working with the OfS on these difficult issues but they have just wanted to prosecute us, even persecute us, on this. It’s a very sorry state for a regulator to be doing this rather than actually trying to help the sector work better.” The OfS’s final ruling focuses on a trans and non-binary equality policy statement passed in 2018, which the regulator argued had “a chilling effect” that could result in self-censorship by staff and students. Stock wrote yesterday that the “most egregious” part of the policy statement had been a clause that said “any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives”. Stock wrote: “Over time, my teaching about sex and gender in feminist philosophy grew increasingly cautious.” Roseneil said: “Obviously she left long before I arrived but it is deeply regrettable that Kathleen [Stock] wasn’t supported to the extent that she felt able to stay working at Sussex. I regret that.” But she said the OfS had erred by inflating the statement into a “governing document”. Roseneil said the OfS policy was a “sort of libertarian, free speech absolutism” that meant universities were unable to apply rules for anything other than unlawful behaviour or speech. “We can’t now say that we will remove or take down antisemitic or anti-Muslim propaganda because not all such propaganda is illegal,” she said. Article Name:University taking legal action over free speech fine Publication:The Guardian Author:Richard Adams Education editor Start Page:9 End Page:9
The Times [1]
A mother’s strength after an unbearable loss TV review Carol Midgley Esther Ghey, mother of murdered Brianna, was inspirational Next image › Brianna: A Mother’s Story ITV1, 9pm ★★★★☆ What an impressive woman Esther Ghey is. How many of us would find the strength and dignity to carry ourselves as she has done after the sadistic murder of a child? Not to mention the empathy she has for the mother of one of her daughter’s killers, with whom she has formed a relationship, speaking to her most weeks. Remarkable. But I’m glad that the excellent, inspiring Brianna: A Mother’s Story, in which her intelligence and compassion shone through the bleakness, did not spare us any of the horror of what two barbarous killers, aged just 15, did to Brianna. Let us never, ever forget that. Everyone is talking about Adolescence, which they should be because it’s brilliant, the story of how a child is stabbed to death by another child and the terrifying, malign impact of the internet, especially influencers and social media, on immature minds. But it is a drama. What happened to Brianna is devastatingly real. The story within Adolescence is different, tackling the effect of toxic masculinity and online bullying on children, but here, with Brianna’s murder, we saw how online torture videos normalised violence and desensitised one of her killers, Scarlett Jenkinson, to the savagery she went on to inflict. That her accomplice Eddie Ratcliffe coldly texted about the plan to kill Brianna, who was trans, “I want to see if it screams like a man or a girl”, is the stuff of nightmares. As is Jenkinson saying that she wanted to keep one of Brianna’s eyes as a trophy. “They have pretty eyes.” You may recall those CCTV images of Brianna getting off the bus, meeting Jenkinson, who she thought was her friend, outfit for the day chosen, make-up done. I kept thinking what it must be like for Ghey to see those pictures repeatedly, her daughter at that point still safe, walking trustingly into those woods to be stabbed 28 times with a hunting knife. But what a gargantuan act of strength to channel this pain into helping lessen the risks for other people’s children, partly by campaigning for meditation practice in schools, something she says “saved me”. “I have a massive hole in my heart. Everything I’m doing is not necessarily filling that hole but in a way I feel like it’s bringing Brianna on the journey with me,” she said, which made me cry because it’s her way of continuing to mother her child. Brianna had seen websites encouraging self-harm and disordered eating. I’m not sure why the film needed to switch to the Bronx in New York to show the consequences of young knife crime. There are, tragically, plenty of examples of this at home. But Ghey saw how mindfulness was being used in schools there and met Arturo Béjar, a former employee of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, who blew the whistle on the company, saying it turned a blind eye to the harm it causes. What he said was spot on. Letting them roam the internet is “like sending your kids into the worst neighbourhood, where [they are] going to be sold drugs, sexually harassed, see things that [are] going to scar them’’. And yet we seem helpless to stop it. That Esther Ghey, after all the pain she has suffered, wants to help your children by “planting seeds of resilience and empathy” is humbling.
Daily Mail [2]
How dim-witted! Academic in free speech row gives her withering verdict on trans policies stifling UK’s universities Daily Mail28 Mar 2025By Eleanor Harding Education Editor THE feminist academic at the centre of a free speech row at Sussex University has hit out at ‘dim-witted’ trans policies in the higher education sector. Kathleen Stock, who was forced by bosses to censor her gender-critical views and was eventually hounded out of her job, said the same is happening on campuses ‘across the land’. She said she is now ‘disgusted’ by academia and accused university managements of pandering to ‘moronic campaigners’. Sussex was fined £585,000 this week by the Office for Students for failing to uphold free speech during the furore. The OfS criticised the university’s transgender equality policy, which forced tutors to ‘positively represent trans people and trans lives’ in their teaching, and banned ‘transphobic propaganda’. It said this had a ‘chilling’ effect on Professor Stock, who taught philosophy there until 2021, and other staff and students. Students took against Professor Stock because she believes biological males should not have an automatic right to women-only spaces if they identify as female. Writing in a blog for website UnHerd yesterday, she described the trans policy as ‘egregious’. She said: ‘This seemed to me more like an instruction from a client to an advertising agency than a serious pedagogical commitment... [It] set the tone for nearly everything that would then happen to me over the next few years, emboldening those at the university who were already against me, and enfeebling the morale of the rest.’ Professor Stock added: ‘Many of these dim-witted, claustrophobic policies are still in place in universities across the land, right now’. Guidance on University College London’s website states: ‘If a trans person informs a staff member that a word or phrasing is inappropriate or offensive, then that staff member should take their word for it, and adjust their phraseology accordingly.’ A policy on Leeds University’s website says: ‘The university will strive to ensure that its curriculum does not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people and that it contains material that positively represents trans people and trans lives.’ The OfS has warned similar action could be taken against other universities, with higher fines. Sussex has vowed to legally challenge the OfS’s decision. A university spokesman said it had in 2022 removed the phrase criticised by the OfS from their trans policy statement, and claimed it had ‘consistently and publicly defended [Professor Stock’s] right... to express her gender critical beliefs’. UCL said its guidance ‘does not impact on [its] deep commitment to freedom of speech’. Leeds was contacted for comment. Article Name:How dim-witted! Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Eleanor Harding Education Editor Start Page:10 End Page:10
Just as an academic hounded out of her job wins a victory for free speech, I fear Labour’s planning to wreck a new law that would protect heroes like her Daily Mail28 Mar 2025by Professor Matt Goodwin Activists: Students protesting against Professor Stock, inset LET’S not kid ourselves – we’ve just seen a significant victory in the fight to ensure that free speech survives in Britain’s universities. But Professor Kathleen Stock’s record win against the University of Sussex is only one skirmish in a war against an educational establishment that wants to determine not only what we can say out loud but even what we are allowed to think. Free expression continues to be crushed on campuses up and down the country. Yet, the signs are that Labour ministers are on the side of censorship – and will in future look the other way. In this week’s very welcome judgment, the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for allowing extremist activists to bully and hound Professor Stock from her post because her views did not align with woke trans orthodoxy. An analytical philosopher, Stock had even faced death threats for her insistence that biological sex is real and that men cannot become women simply by wishing for it. Instead of respecting alternative views, students on Sussex campus – emboldened by university bureaucrats who put the concerns of the student mob before freedom of speech and thought – harangued and hectored Stock with intimidating demonstrations until she became so afraid for her own safety that her job was untenable. Far from trying to protect Professor Her views did not align with woke orthodoxy Stock, the university seemed only too glad to see the back of her. Now, after Stock brought a legal challenge through the higher education regulator – a course of action only possible thanks to the last Conservative government – the Office for Students (OfS) has ruled that Sussex ‘failed to uphold’ her freedom of speech. It was a failure that had wide-reaching effects, said the regulator, with Sussex staff and students fearing disciplinary action for doing no more than express lawful views. It is telling that the university remains furiously unrepentant and has vowed to challenge the decision, which, it claims, ‘is perpetuating the culture wars’. Sussex said the OfS ruling would leave institutions, ‘powerless to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech’ and accused the OfS of using an ‘unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech’ to pursue a ‘vindictive and unreasonable campaign’ against it. In other words, Sussex resents this setback and demands nothing less than total victory in its campaign to silence those who disagree with trans ideology. As Iain Mansfield, a former special adviser to three Conservative education ministers wrote on X this week, it is a troubling state of affairs: ‘Effectively, Sussex is standing by its actions which saw a distinguished philosopher hounded out for lawful speech. ‘Like too many others, it seems to think its job is to suppress free speech, not uphold it. Can you imagine a publicly funded institution responding with the same defiance to any other form of major fault found by its regulator – to racism, or harassment, or discrimination, or safeguarding?’ The question now is whether the Labour Government will allow the OfS to continue fining institutions that tolerate woke extremism. Or whether, as I fear, they will dismantle this all-important protection. Bridget Phillipson, minister for women and equalities, has already signalled the law will be watered down – and that universities will no longer face swingeing financial penalties for abandoning free speech. The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act was introduced by the Tories in 2023 to ‘secure and promote the importance’ of free expression on campus. But in one of the incoming Labour administration’s first moves, the Act was put on hold with a government spin doctor leaking the suggestion that it could become a charter for antisemites and Holocaust deniers. That’s nonsense – and I know it is because I helped to draft the original Bill. In January, it was quietly announced that the Act would be reintroduced – but with significant changes. Although Phillipson continued to state that she believed academic freedom was, ‘much more important than the wishes of some students not to be offended’, she is expected to revise it so that universities will no longer face fines for their behaviour. This is being done, a government spokesman said, to avoid embroiling universities in costly, drawn-out legal battles. Yet it’s only because the University of Sussex faces a fine of more than half a million pounds that other institutions will take notice. If nothing more than a slap on the wrist were administered, the reaction would be a collective shrug. The fact is that, while universities are supposed to foster the spirit of open enquiry, they have a strong vested interest in suppressing free speech. From the 1960s onwards, socialist extremists have imposed themselves on university committees and departments and consistently dragged the educational establishment towards the hard Left. One of the wretched consequences is that our universities and colleges are now weighed down with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) officers. Oxford University, for instance, spends about £2million a year on these modern-day equivalents of Orwell’s Thought Police. The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act threatens their jobs – which is ironic because these people see it as their own role to oust others. I know this only too well. In 2016, I fell foul of the woke orthodoxy when, as a professor of politics at the University of Kent, I stated my view that the result of the Brexit referendum should be respected. I wasn’t anti-EU, but I believed that in a democracy the will of the people should be sacrosanct. Overnight I became an outcast, subjected to virulent criticism that often felt like harassment. One professor told me I was barred from a workshop because of my unacceptable views. Some people on social media even spread the false rumour that I was a disciple of Donald Trump. They did everything they dared to smear my reputation. And I am far from the only one. Academics in universities across Britain have been ‘no-platformed’ or denied the right to speak in public, because their legitimate and sincere opinions on everything from gender to history supposedly make students ‘unsafe’. Kathleen Stock said this week that she has no intention of working These travesties extend beyond academia for another British university because they are run by people who ‘want social justice according to a very narrow conception that does not involve employing me’. These travesties extend far beyond academia. Only last week, we learned that a contractor was dismissed by the Home Office for the crime of sharing a post on social media by Reform MP Richard Tice. Gary Costin, 57, had worked for government contractors Mitie and G4S for 15 years. To deprive anyone of their livelihood for echoing something perfectly legal said by a Member of Parliament is atrocious. That this should be done by a leading department in the Civil Service is chilling. The redoubtable Professor Stock has won a praiseworthy victory against the stifling of free thought and speech – and we should be glad. But if we let Labour and the woke establishment get away with defanging our vital freedom of speech laws, it will have been in vain. ■ Matt Goodwin is Senior Visiting Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and writes at mattgoodwin.org Article Name:Just as an academic hounded out of her job wins a victory for free speech, I fear Labour’s planning to wreck a new law that would protect heroes like her Publication:Daily Mail Author:by Professor Matt Goodwin Start Page:19 End Page:19

29 Saturday Total: 2

The Times [1]
Telegraph [1]
Parent screams ‘you’re a boy’ at U12 girl Father goes on pitch to abuse rumoured transgender player ‘Disgraceful’ conduct earns 18-match ban from touchline The Daily Telegraph - Saturday29 Mar 2025By Ben Coles Chip and charge: Henry Pollock bursts through Sale’s defence to score a stunning solo try for Northampton A parent has received an 18-week touchline ban after screaming “you’re a f-----g boy” at a player rumoured to be transgender in an under-12s girls match between Rosslyn Park and Cobham. Graham Hall, whose daughter was playing for Rosslyn Park in a Surrey Cup match on Jan 26 at Covenham Grounds, accused the Cobham player following a tackle on his daughter. Hall, 45, entered the pitch and, according to a witness, “screamed and shouted” at the player “you’re a f-----g boy and shouldn’t be playing in a girls side... you are clearly not a girl and look what you’ve done”. After the Cobham player left the field in tears, her father approached Hall and told him not to speak that way to his daughter. They squared up before being pulled away. In her statement to a disciplinary panel, the abused player described accidentally falling on her opponent after a tackle, causing her to scream. She said that Hall shouted in her face “that was f-----g unnecessary, why would you do that?” adding that Hall “kept on saying I was a boy”. She left the field in tears, felt “scared and panicked” and was struggling to breathe. She added: “I love playing rugby for the Cobham team and we have got really good team spirit and look after each other through every moment. We always have loads of fun, and I am happiest when playing rugby.” While Hall later apologised to both the Cobham player and her father, when giving evidence he disputed the lawfulness of the tackle and denied swearing at the player. He did admit swearing at her father and that he should not have entered the pitch. Hall claimed he had heard information before the match that Cobham were fielding a boy. Giving evidence, he accepted that “he should not have listened to such rumours”, having at the time believed that the player should not have been there. Hall continued to believe the rumours after the match and pursued his inquiries with the Rugby Football Union about transgender regulations. Given the rumours, Cobham had been asked by Rosslyn Park before the match if they were fielding any boys, to which they said no. The disciplinary panel rejected Hall’s account of what had occurred and described him as “an unimpressive witness”, while stressing that Hall’s view of the abused player was based on “wholly unsubstantiated rumour and conjecture that was factually wrong”. The panel was unanimous in its verdict that Hall had verbally abused the player. It praised his daughter, who had suffered a serious injury and told the Cobham player “it’s OK, it wasn’t your fault”. Hall’s conduct was described as “disgraceful” and under Rule 5.12 – conduct prejudicial to the interests of the union and the game – was viewed as a top-end offence with a starting point of 24 weeks, reduced to 18 weeks given Hall’s “acceptance of some misconduct and his previous good disciplinary record”. The sanction is intended to cover both training and matches. Article Name:Parent screams ‘you’re a boy’ at U12 girl Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Author:By Ben Coles Start Page:10 End Page:10

30 Sunday Total: 5

The Sunday Times [1]
The girls with their banners, where are they now? Academic Kathleen Stock quit after being accused of transphobia. Now that her former university has been fined £585,000, she wants a public conversation with her critics, not a public shaming Rosamund Urwin Kathleen Stock resigned after students at Sussex University demanded her removal Next image › Kathleen Stock wants to speak to the students who once tried to get her sacked. The philosopher and writer, who resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021 after being accused of transphobia and harassed for her views on gender, was vindicated last week when her former employer was fined £585,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech. “I’d love to know what those protesting against me think now,” she says in her first interview since the ruling. “I wouldn’t shame them — I’d have a public conversation with them. Well, not the dicks who threatened me, but the girls with their banners — where are they now?” I meet Stock, 52, in her Sussex home. Born in Scotland, she studied French and philosophy at Oxford, before joining the University of Sussex in 2003. There, she toiled in academic obscurity, writing about aesthetics and imagination, until the gender wars came to campus, turning her into a leading light of the gender-critical movement: a heroine to many feminists but a heretic to transgender ideologues. Stock is measured in her language, emphasising that she doesn’t see herself as a victim in this story. It began in 2018, when she wrote an article questioning the government’s proposed policy to allow transgender people to self-identify as their chosen gender; Stock was accused by students of “transphobia”. When her book about gender identity, Material Girls, was published in 2021, students demanded her removal and some claimed they felt “unsafe” on campus. It took considerable courage for her to speak out then. “I feel braver than I used to feel,” she says. “I’ve tested myself.” Stock describes her treatment by colleagues and students in the months preceding her resignation as “primitive”: pointing, whispering, ostracism and threats. She was advised to install CCTV outside her home. While this was happening, bouquets flooded into the Sussex post room from supporters. One colleague publicly backed her: a military historian she has never spoken to. He put a sign on his door which read: “I stand with Kathleen Stock.” When she left, she asked that the flowers be given to him. I feel braver than I used to feel Now, her former employer is again in the spotlight after it was fined by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), which criticised its policy statement on “trans and non-binary equality”. The OfS said Sussex’s assertion that “transphobic propaganda ... will not be tolerated” could have a “chilling effect” and lead staff to “self-censor”. Sussex is the first university to be fined under new powers given to the OfS in January. It has vowed to challenge the size of the fine and the OfS’s findings. Stock is “surprised” by its combative response. She now calls herself a “recovering academic” and makes her living from writing. What made her so sure in her opposition to gender self-ID? In part she says it was being a lesbian, which meant she knew biological sex mattered to sexual orientation, and that she felt immune to the “bewitching” power of gender nonconformity. But her background in philosophy played a role too. “I didn’t believe in the power of words utterly to change reality,” she says. Universities were once bastions of free speech — how did they become places of censorship and moral cowardice? “Some disciplines in the humanities and social sciences became extremely ideological in the 1970s,” she replies. “When I was trying to raise the alarm about this to philosophers, I was stuck between the ideologues attacking me and a bunch of others who thought, ‘Why are you wasting your time with this when it’s clearly stupid?’ But I could see it would have massive implications if we didn’t stop it.” Stock emphasises this is not unique to Sussex: “I think there’s contempt in universities for ordinary people’s attitudes ... on race, immigration or feminism.” But she also sees signs this is improving on campuses, with academics setting up groups to promote free speech. The other side of the gender debate has “gone to ground”, she adds, a shift she attributes in part to the work of grassroots campaigners — Fair Play for Women, Sex Matters and Transgender Trend. But there’s a second, more immediate catalyst too. Boys aren’t just naughty girls Stock predicts there will be medical negligence cases in other countries, and possibly action against the NHS. At the Tavistock, the clinic for children with gender dysphoria that closed last year, Stock feels warning signs were overlooked. “[The clinicians] recognised things that were red flags: that lots of the [female] patients were responding to the demands of femininity, that it’s not science, that they were doing irrevocable things to kids’ bodies. But they just thought, ‘Oh, well’.” Hilary Cass’s critical report into what happened at the Tavistock also recommended a controlled trial for puberty blockers. Does Stock think it should go ahead? “No,” she says. “It’s like asking whether there should be controlled research on trepanning [drilling a hole in the skull to expose the brain]. There’s animal trials you can do that don’t involve experiments on live adolescents.” She thinks the trans movement peaked with millennials, that teenagers now are “just not into it in the same way”, and that in a decade it will be out of fashion. While she believes there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria, she thinks others experienced social contagion. “Gender dysphoria covers an enormous range of phenomena, from extreme mental health difficulties to narcissistic adolescent obsession,” she says. “On that end of the spectrum, [changing attitudes] might just chivvy people out of it, like, ‘This isn’t cool any more’.” Among her female students, she remembers widespread self-harming in the early 2010s, and thinks that a similar type of student would later identify as trans. “They would have scars down their arms,” she recalls. Stock is unpredictable in her views. She differs from many mainstream feminists and thinks that there are “hardwired differences” between male and female brains. “It’s a middle-class fantasy that we can just soft-power boys into being versions of girls, but boys aren’t just naughty versions of girls that need to read more books,” she says. “On average, they’re quite aggressive. They have bursts of testosterone.” While many feminists have no time for Jordan Peterson, Stock — who has two sons and a daughter — almost defends him. “He was quite good for boys — an acceptable father figure,” she says. “The progressive establishment acted like he was Andrew Tate. He got terribly condescended to by establishment liberal feminists, who made clear their dripping contempt for him.” More generally, she believes we inflate the influence of these figures, even Tate. “The media and academics act as though the ordinary person is stupid, ripe for the plucking. I know boys who are into Tate because he tells them that they can make money. We should understand the motives for people engaging this stuff, and not always panic.” She would like feminists eventually to move on from the trans fight into issues such as surrogacy or prostitution. Stock has moved on now too. Her next book will be opposing assisted dying. “It’s going to be a disaster,” she says of Kim Leadbeater’s bill. “You just know. Half the time [its supporters] are the same people as the gender stuff: rich liberals living in north London going, ‘It’d be nice to have a service that can off me in my penthouse.’ It’s the same basic impulse: hyper-liberalism and control of the body.” The bill’s implementation is now likely to be pushed back until at least 2029, reducing the chances of assisted dying becoming practice. “It’ll be back,” she says. “The campaigners will say to themselves that they can do better, because that’s the hubris of progressives.” Stock, no doubt, will be there to fight it.
Mail on Sunday [1]
MY ALMA mater Sussex University is in the news for breaching regulations on free speech after Professor Kathleen Stock was hounded out for her views in the transgender debate. Sussex has always had form in the politically correct – or incorrect – arena. During my time there in the late 1970s, we were always having sit-ins over some issue or other. One module in my Social Anthropology course focused on the independence of Kenya and Tanganyika. I can’t remember a thing about it other than resenting the fact our reading lists and seminars gave a purely Marxist interpretation of events. Not entirely wisely, I confronted my tutor on this – and not entirely surprisingly, I failed the module.
Alex Shulman
Sunday Telegraph [3]
This is the year of JK Rowling’s triumph and it is such a joy to watch The Sunday Telegraph30 Mar 2025 By 2018, when the trans movement hotted up, JK Rowling was already used to unbelievable levels of abuse and threat for the crime of believing in the primacy of biological sex over social declarations of gender – and for liking the tweets of others who shared this view. She later gave her support to Maya Forstater, a researcher who had been sacked for posting her belief that someone cannot change biological sex. Writing on her website, Rowling wrote: “I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called c--- and b---- and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.” Since then, Rowling has endured many more threats and insults. She is the queen “Terf ” (trans exclusionary radical feminist) – the insult the trans lobby coined for people who don’t accept that men can be women just by saying so. (Terf has become a badge of pride among those with the label; and Britain, for a time, was known among fans as Terf Island). As the mass drubbing in public really took off after 2020, she found that even the young actors whose careers she made – the stars of the Harry Potter franchise – had turned against her, coming out with sanctimonious statements about how “trans women are women” and how “Jo” had got it wrong. Emma Watson, who played Hermione in the films, sniped that trans people “are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned”. Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter himself, said that he was “really sad” at the rupture caused by Rowling’s stance. Eddie Redmayne – who starred in Potter spin-off Fantastic Beasts – was the most sanctimonious. “I disagree with Jo’s comments. Trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid.” But the great Rowling has won: she bravely hoisted the mad world on her shoulders and shifted it to saner ground. The Cass Report drew a line in the sand about puberty-blockers and the clinics that prescribe them: they are no longer routinely offered in Britain. And as the hailstorm of adolescent girls transitioning to boys and seeking body-altering surgery to that effect has slowed, some of them are “detransitioning”, Most people would have surrendered to the sustained assault. But she endured realising that their apparent gender dysphoria was more to do with other issues from undiagnosed autism to lesbianism. In the US, the new administration has declared war on the trans lobby. Without her bravery in speaking the truth bluntly, to politicians, Twitter terrorists and journalists – as well as that of her coterie of close friends, including the Telegraph writers Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore – the right of biological women to spaces reserved for them would never have been recaptured. Biological men can no longer compete in most women’s sport. Most people would have surrendered to the sustained assault on their mental health and basic safety. But she endured. In refusing to kowtow to the trans lobby, she has made it OK, and less dangerous, to say true things of vital importance. And now, despite the original cast’s intolerable ingratitude, despite a whole generation of trans activists pretending she is the devil incarnate, there is now a new Harry Potter series – made for HBO this time – scheduled to hit screens in 2027 and set to air over the course of a decade. More than 31,000 children sent in audition tapes. It wasn’t quite the case that she was ostracised. Rowling has written about the outpouring of letters from people who were grateful to her for speaking up about what they also recognised was a terrifying and pervasive trend: the denial of women’s sex-based rights, and all that this entailed. It meant allowing self-identifying “women” into women’s changing rooms, prisons, and hospital wards. Rosie Duffield, the Canterbury MP who quit Labour in part over its stance on trans rights, was and is one of Rowling’s most steadfast supporters. And there’s her tight-knit buddies – Bindel, Moore, also ex-Sussex philosophy professor Kathleen Stock and Maya Forstater – known to the world after they posted pictures of themselves having a Terf-themed lunch at the River Cafe in 2022. Their loyalty to Rowling is legendary: all are tight-lipped about the friendship. But it’s obvious from her sauciness that “Jo” is good fun. I enjoyed her response to the prospect of a two-year jail term for misgendering a trans person, imagined under the (then) forthcoming Labour government. “Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.” As for her preferred prison job: “Hoping for the library, obviously, but I think I could do OK in the kitchens. Laundry might be a problem. I have a tendency to shrink stuff/turn it pink accidentally. Guessing that won’t be a major issue if it’s mostly scrubs and sheets, though.” The Harry Potter books came out while I was an undergraduate, and a recent attempt to read one backfired: I hated it. No matter: Rowling is one of the greats, whether you think it’s for her world of wizards, or the way she forced a bit of sanity back on a culture that is distinctly short on it. Do we really need to turn to the French to teach us our own history? Few will have had the chance to enjoy a particular slice of land in Bucknell outside Bicester in Oxfordshire: it’s been a pig farm owned by one Derek Hall, 80. But Hall is now selling his land to the conservative French theme park, Puy du Fou. At £600million to create, it is certain that this patch of land will enjoy greater visitor numbers than it has ever done before. Does Britain really need a mammoth historical theme park with no rides? Well, perhaps it does. The French one is a classic attraction, launched in 1978, and located in Les Epesses in the Loire in France and there’s been one in Toledo, Spain, since 2021. The founder, Philippe de Villiers, is a hard-Right Catholic aristocrat, politician and novelist with seven children – and his offering attracts millions of visitors a year. Back in Blighty, locals have given poor Mr Hall a hard time for selling his land to Puy du Fou, but perhaps it’s what we need in this age of cringing self-abasement about our past – which I would wager is more glorious in its way and certainly more morally impressive than France’s. But it says it all that celebrating our past is something we have to rely on a French Right-winger to do. That said, I fear it will be a bit of a lunatic enterprise. Villiers is hardly a figure of sobriety, having founded the Mouvement pour la France party in 1994, which pressed for a ban on mosque building and gay marriage. Indeed, it’s one thing teaching Britain’s rich history in all its colours, good and bad. It’s another foisting a jingoistic, patriotic love-in on visitors fooled into thinking they’re getting “history”. Still, with four period villages and 13 live shows, it might just be a fun day out. Article Name:This is the year of JK Rowling’s triumph and it is such a joy to watch Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Start Page:6 End Page:6
GPs stand their ground over prescribing trans hormones The Sunday Telegraph30 Mar 2025By Michael Searles HEALTH CORRESPONDENT FAMILY doctors should not be made to prescribe cross-sex hormones to under18s, the Royal College of GPs has said. In a “position statement” update, the Royal College of GPs set out the limitations of the role family doctors should play in transgender healthcare, particularly when it comes to children questioning their gender. The update, which was agreed by the RCGP council earlier this month, states that the profession should not be prescribing gender-affirming hormones to anyone under 18 years old. It comes amid various legal challenges attempting to ban the use of cross-sex drugs in children. While there is a UK-wide ban on the use of puberty blockers – except for an NHS-run clinical trial – it is still possible for children to get cross-sex hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, which are also known as “gender-affirming hormones”. One legal challenge against their continued availability to under-18s is being led by Kiera Bell, a de-transitioner who regretted trans surgery. The legal case argues that the drugs issued to 16 to 18-year-olds pose an “irreversible” and “unacceptable” risk to the health of thousands of vulnerable children suffering from gender dysphoria. Cross-sex hormones change the physical sexual characteristics of a person, while puberty blockers delay the onset of puberty by suppressing the release of hormones. The NHS has warned providers to be “extremely cautious” when considering ‘GPs are not trained to have the skills required to address the specific needs of gender incongruence’ whether to issue cross-sex hormones to children, because of their harmful side effects, but under current guidance, Children and Young People Gender Services are able to give them to 16 and 17 year-olds. Often patients who have been seen by a specialist and receive a prescription will continue to receive their treatment via their GP under “shared care agreements”. But not all GPs feel equipped to be prescribing the drugs and taking on the responsibility for the patient’s care, particularly in children with gender issues, when there are so many unknowns and potential for other health complications and conditions to arise. The profession has also found itself in the crosshairs of a controversial part of medicine that, as generalists, they are not trained for, with long waiting lists for specialist services meaning they can be the only point of care for many years. The RCGP’s position update said it advised “following national guidance and drawing on the recommendations highlighted in the Cass Review”. This means providing “holistic care, contextualising a person’s presentation of gender incongruence alongside an individual’s physical, psychological and social health status within the broader environment”, its statement said. But it adds that “as expert generalists, GPs are not trained to have the specialist skills required. An NHS spokesperson said: “NHS England will consult with the RCGP and other professional bodies as part of the process for agreeing the new policy.” A Department of Health and Social Care Spokesperson said: “We continue to work with NHS England to implement the recommendations from Dr Cass.” Article Name:GPs stand their ground over prescribing trans hormones Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Michael Searles HEALTH CORRESPONDENT Start Page:7 End Page:7
It’s uncomfortable to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues The data scientist and author of a review on sex and gender talks to Judith Woods about academic groupthink, the ideological capture of the NHS, and Wes Streeting’s response The Sunday Telegraph30 Mar 2025Alice Sullivan On my way to meet Prof Alice Sullivan it occurs to me that if Marvel were dreaming up a new franchise, it probably wouldn’t alight on a quantitative data scientist as its new superhero. And that would be a terrible miscalculation. Her recently published Sullivan Review reveals that when it comes to liberating public bodies from “institutional capture” by trans activists and highlighting the dangerous lunacy of conflating sex with gender, our doughtiest defence is data. Sullivan, a professor of sociology and a quantitative data scientist at University College London, was commissioned by the previous Conservative government to investigate how data on biological sex is collected by public bodies after serious concerns were raised about the stranglehold of gender ideology in our key organisations. She was chosen to lead the review because of her specialist work on the topic and well publicised views on the need to record accurate data on sex. “Sex and gender identity are distinct characteristics and not interchangeable,” has always been her message. “But unfortunately people in a great many organisations don’t understand data collection as a discipline and have been taking advice from other people who don’t understand it either; the result is a mess. We need – we have a responsibility – to record both sex and gender identity.” She and her team carried out interviews, collated evidence and heard from whistleblowers too fearful of reprisals to speak out. What they uncovered was shocking; across other key organisations like the NHS, schools, the police and the Civil Service, factual information on biological sex has been replaced by subjective (and highly contested) feedback on gender identity since 2015. As a consequence “robust accurate data” has been lost, the review concluded. Criminals – including sex offenders – are being permitted to choose a self-identified “gender” rather than their biological sex and the police and courts are complying. Then there are the schools that immediately change children’s “gender” on IT systems if they self-identify as the opposite sex – often without consulting the parents. Civil servants have been hounded out for perfectly ordinary opinions on biological sex. Enter the Sullivan Review. For those longing to turn the tide on aggressive gender politics, this detailed 226-page document has drawn a long-overdue line in the sand. Maya Forstater, chief executive of pressure group Sex Matters, welcomed its findings: “This review is devastatingly clear about the harms caused by carelessness with sex data and a decade-long failure of the Civil Service to maintain impartiality and uphold data standards. The destruction of data about sex has caused real harm to individuals and research, and undermined the integrity of policymaking. Conflating sex and gender identity is not a harmless act of kindness but a damaging dereliction of duty.” Or, as transgender lobby group TransActual put it on its website: “This Review is providing an academic gloss on what is a political call to strip trans people of our hard-won rights to privacy, dignity, and respect in public spaces.” It’s the sort of binary response that has landed Britain in such a nonsensical quagmire in the first place. Sullivan has, in fact, called on organisations to record gender preference as well as sex when gathering data – but nuance has gone the same way as common sense. Thankfully, cometh the hour, cometh the quantitative data scientist in the shape of Prof Alice Sullivan, who is as far from a Gradgrindian number-cruncher as you can imagine. To my mind it all feels terribly bleak. But when we meet, in her corner of north London, where the magnolia trees are in full creamy bloom and the local coffee shop is so vegan I almost cause a riot when I unwittingly ask for “real milk”, Sullivan is in surprisingly high spirits. “I’m optimistic. I think this review marks a watershed. It has taken a long time but I really do believe we are beyond the point where we can be silenced. It’s the beginning of the end for no debate.” Wouldn’t that be nice? I can’t help suggesting that Donald Trump of all people may have had a part to play in changing the proverbial mood music surrounding gender issues. “As a life-long Leftie, it feels uncomfortable to be put in the position of agreeing with Donald Trump. But the fact is that he is simply saying that there are two sexes and that this matters, for example in prisons and sports. If Donald Trump says that the earth is round, should Leftists claim it is flat just to avoid being on the same side as him? This kind of tribal thinking has been horribly damaging to the Left. The idiotic positions that the Democrats took on these issues helped to gift the election to Trump. Mainstream politicians of all stripes need to learn from this that denying observable facts about the world is dangerous.” For years now Sullivan has refused to be silenced by gender militants who have bullied and threatened her online. Instead she has continued to focus on “biological truth” and has striven – not always successfully – to staunch the tide of “ideological capture”, which has seen LGBTQ+ networks within our key organisations mount successful, sustained campaigns to change the culture within them. “As a result, an atmosphere of fear has been created making people scared to speak out against or even discuss issues surrounding gender,” she says. “Bad decisions have been made by management because they have erroneously assumed these highly vocal activists represent far greater numbers than they do.” Later Sullivan happily confides she hasn’t had any death threats recently, which tells us everything we need to know about the toxic tactics employed by some trans militants who have somehow managed to weaponise “hurt feelings” and bully public servants into accepting a parallel reality. We meet in the week that the University of Sussex was handed a record fine of £585,000 by the Office for Students for failing to uphold freedom of speech. It came following a lengthy investigation into the university’s handling of the case of Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor who resigned after being targeted by protests over her views on gender. “Kathleen Stock had a horrific level of abuse, and I’ve received nothing like that. By and large my peers have been very supportive but there have been exceptions and it is totally unacceptable that women are being horribly intimidated just for believing in biological sex.” But back to Sullivan. Five feet tall with bleached pixie-cut hair, when we meet at her north London home she is wearing a teal-coloured dress that matches the extravagant Designer’s Guild wallpaper in her straight-fromthe-pages-of-Living dining room. She takes me through the hallway hung with interesting art, to the bold modernist kitchen where on the breakfast table there are two lovely patterned plates and a recipe for linguine with fresh crab is open on a book stand – and it’s not even midweek! She laughs at my chippy indignation. But it later transpires she’s half Spanish (hence the good food) and has never wanted children (hence the glossy colour supplement interiors) so I am forced to retract my remarks about her being “a member of the metropolitan elite”. Sullivan, who lives with her mathematician husband John Armstrong, an academic at King’s College London, laughs a surprising amount. I find myself wondering aloud if that’s because it’s physically, or indeed metaphysically, impossible to be cancelled twice? She was famously no-platformed in late 2019 when a research methods seminar where she was due to speak, held by the National Centre for Social Research, was axed on the grounds “the topic was of too much public interest”. Sullivan rolls her eyes at the ridiculousness. “That is what I was initially told, although I’d never heard of something being called off because it was deemed too interesting,” she says. Her perceived misdemeanour was that of having “anti-trans views” because she had raised her head above the parapet and criticised the Office for National Statistics for failing to collect data on biological sex. When she was bluntly told she was the reason for the cancellation she broke down. “I cried,” she says. “I’m normally Captain Calm but I felt utterly bewildered that this was happening in my world, a world of sober data science. Data is about trust and once you lose trust, democracy itself is at risk. That way lies authoritarianism.” Sullivan was born and raised in Bristol. Her late Glaswegian father left school at 14 but became involved in the Trades Union movement. He took opportunities offered by the Workers’ Educational Association and moved to London, where he took five A-levels – he had no idea that three was the norm – and later completed a degree and then a PhD as a mature student, during which time he met Sullivan’s mother, who was from the Basque region. “My parents were both socialists,” she says. “But my dad, who died 20 years ago, also had a built-in bull---t detector which I think he passed on to me. He also had a mischievous sense of humour and there have been times when I would really have appreciated him being around so he could help me find the funny side of the more stressful things that have happened.” After reading PPE at Balliol College, Oxford, Sullivan undertook a Masters in sociology and then a PhD in the sociology of education. She took a job at the Institute of Education which became part of University College London and worked her way up from research officer to professor. And from 2010 to 2020 she was also director of the hugely important ongoing 1970 British Cohort Study, which followed the lives of around 17,000 people born in England, Scotland and Wales in a single week of 1970. Her involvement with gender issues began, as is so often the case, on a personal note. Both she and her husband are keen runners and often use the track at Hampstead Heath. In 2018 Sullivan discovered that moves were afoot to allow individuals to access areas such as the Ladies’ Pond and other facilities based on self-identification which gave her pause. “I use the changing rooms there and I thought, ‘That’s a bit much, you can’t just ID yourself into a woman’s space’. Then I saw the consultation document which was a really badly written questionnaire – and I care a lot about questionnaires.” Having thought long and hard about going public, she felt it was important so she contacted the local paper in Camden, which ran a story. But despite her best efforts, self-identification was introduced, giving transgender women the right to use the Ladies’ Pond and other facilities, a policy that still persists today. Meanwhile, as she became more familiar with grassroots feminist movements who were taking a stance against the eradication of sex in officialdom, the Office for National Statistics announced that it was rolling out a new, “inclusive” version of the sex question on the 2021 national census. This would allow respondents to answer according to their self-identified gender rather than their physical sex – thereby making a nonsense of its data collection. Sullivan took a stand – and garnered hate mail – when she criticised this bias in an open letter she organised in 2019. It was signed by more than 80 eminent academics from Oxbridge and Russell Group universities, pointing out that it would “undermine data reliability on a key demographic variable and damage our ability to capture and remedy sex-based discrimination and inequality”. The ONS refused to back down and in 2021 was taken to court by the feminist group Fair Play for Women and the judge found in the group’s favour, ordering changes to the census – only this week the ONS admitted that the number of trans people was “incorrectly recorded” in the latest census. The case highlighted just how tightly gender ideology had taken hold. “I was so young and naive,” Sullivan laughs, ruefully. “I genuinely thought that getting eminent data scientists and academics to sign an open letter would sort everything out. Surely everyone would agree? Then came the backlash.” Cue a volley of unpleasant messages on what was then Twitter, intimations of violence and death threats on Facebook. “It’s easy to ignore random strangers online but when it’s someone from the academic world, or professional people who should know better amplifying the voices of abusive trolls, it’s disappointing.” Throughout all this, Sullivan had no regrets. In 2023 she co-edited a book, Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader with the Oxford historian Selina Todd and has organised events on the subject – which other academics have sought to cancel, giving a lie to notions of free speech. But her commitment is undiminished. As a sociologist she is fascinated by, among other aspects, the sex divide when it comes to gender identity; at present there seems to be a spike in the number of biological girls choosing to identify as male. But without accurate data this can’t be understood. Similarly without reliable data on sex the world would have no idea about the gender imbalances in some societies where female babies are aborted. “One of the recommendations in the review is that the nonsensical expression ‘assigned at birth’ should no longer be used,” she says, which will have a great many punching the air in jubilation, myself included. “It’s a term that comes from the postmodern philosophical idea that sex is a purely social construct and is not real but assigned at birth. This is just bonkers. Sex is determined at conception and the fact it is observable in utero is why there were so many sex-selective abortions in China under the one-child policy.” But here in the West there are those who stubbornly insist on denying biology. Of all the outrageous instances of gender gerrymandering, one in particular stands out for Sullivan. During research for her eponymous review a paediatrician cited a mother who “changed” the sex of her child when it was still a baby. Within weeks of the birth she decided she wanted to bring up her newborn as the opposite sex and went to her GP to request a new NHS number and have it officially recognised in the sex she had chosen. The GP complied. When children’s social care was alerted, it denied there was any safeguarding issue. “When I heard about that case, I felt physically sick,” admits Sullivan. “I was appalled that an infant could simply be erased from NHS records and given a new identity with a new NHS number. It’s unbelievable, but it happened. The vast majority of parents are loving and responsible but it’s inevitable there will always be some who are attentionseeking and abusive – the scandal is that our institutions are not protecting children, because somewhere along the line it became taboo to challenge gender-identity theory.” Sullivan wasn’t the only one to react with visceral horror. The day after her review’s publication, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced that from now on, no one under the age of 18 will be given a new NHS record. “It’s completely wrong that children’s NHS numbers can be changed if they change gender, and I’ve made it clear this must not happen,” he said. He acted swiftly but many commentators feel the rest of the Government has a long way to go when it comes to stamping out this extraordinary bias towards gender self-identification. “I’m delighted with the strong leadership Wes Streeting has shown,” says Sullivan. “It’s important that the Government as a whole tackles this issue systematically, as the need for accurate data doesn’t only apply to health.” But damningly – disappointingly – Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has refused to issue an order compelling all police forces in England and Wales to collect data specifically on sex. “Sex is a powerful predictor of both offending and victimisation,” urges Sullivan. “It’s vital that the Home Secretary acts to issue a mandatory requirement for all police forces to record data on sex.” Sullivan won’t be drawn on whether a Tory government would have adopted all her review recommendations wholesale. “The fact is that this problem was apparent under the previous Conservative government, and the likes of Theresa May and Boris Johnson facilitated it. Michelle Donelan [former secretary of state for science, innovation and technology] deserves great credit for commissioning the review, but this isn’t a Left-Right issue, it’s a matter of common sense. Accurate data benefits us all.” How many times will she have to say it? A great many more, I expect. But the mere fact the Sullivan Review was commissioned spurs her on. “I’ve been working in this area for years so being given the opportunity to undertake research in this way was almost like an answer to a prayer; I’ve been over the moon with the reception for it. It was even written about in The Sun.” For now, her focus is on the forthcoming second part of her review which looks at barriers to research on sex and gender, primarily in universities. The quantitative data scientists may not inherit the earth, but it seems we desperately need them to make sense of it. ‘Our institutions are not protecting children; it’s become taboo to challenge gender-identity theory’ Article Name:It’s uncomfortable to admit, but Trump is right on trans issues Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:Alice Sullivan Start Page:22 End Page:22

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: 3 more countries call out Cass]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-3-more-countrieshttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-3-more-countriesSun, 16 Mar 2025 10:59:17 GMTThe Trans Agenda

[16 March 2025]

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

Just a quick note that there won’t be an edition next weekend as I’ll be away for a few days, relaxing in a bothy by the sea with little-to-no signal (hopefully).

Don’t worry, I’ll still clip the papers when I get back, so that means a bumper double edition the following week.

UK & IRELAND NEWS

GP condemns puberty blocker ban as trans children suffer dangerous consequences [Wales Online]

  • A Welsh GP has condemned the UK’s ban on puberty blockers, warning that trans children are resorting to dangerous methods like buying unregulated drugs or inducing anorexia to halt puberty.

    She argues, correctly, that withholding blockers worsens mental health and forces trans youth into more invasive treatments later. The Compromised Cass Review cited weak evidence for puberty suppression because it ignored all relevant evidence, while this GP, who remained anonymous for reasons that should be obvious, insists the ban is failing a generation, leaving them vulnerable to distress and long-term harm.

Gender critical activists ‘tracked by terrorism unit’

  • A tribunal has heard that Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism unit monitored anti-trans hate groups. Detective Constable Melanie Newman, who is suing the Met for harassment over her gender-critical beliefs, claimed an officer at a training session described "terfs" in derogatory terms. Evidence was also presented that a Met forum viewed anti-trans campaigners as “heavily resourced” and harmful to minorities, with a counterterror officer reportedly agreeing.

    See PAPER REVIEW, Saturday, for the Times’ article on this.

‘What’s wrong with Cass?’ updated

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

AROUND THE WORLD

EU: Medical bodies slam lack of transparency in Cass Review [Ruth Pearce]

  • A coalition of 23 professional medical organisations and two patient representative groups from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland has raised concerns over the Cass Review’s lack of documented medical expertise in its recommendations on gender dysphoria treatment in children and adolescents.

    The German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy has highlighted that no identifiable medical societies were involved in the report’s preparation. The role of an “Assurance Group” was acknowledged, but it was explicitly excluded from shaping recommendations. Additionally, reports suggest an “Advisory Board” was formed, yet its composition and contributions remain undocumented.

    “It is not documented which other people, apart from the author, were involved in the preparation of the review and in what way,” they state. “Medical societies were not identifiably involved in the preparation of the report.”

EU: EU Court rules gender marker corrections cannot require proof of surgery [Court of Justice of the European Union]

  • The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that trans people cannot be required to provide proof of gender reassignment surgery to have their gender identity legally recognised in public records. The case was brought by VP, an Iranian refugee in Hungary, who was granted asylum in 2014 based on their transgender identity but was incorrectly registered as female in the Hungarian asylum database. Despite presenting medical certificates from psychiatric and gynaecological specialists confirming their gender identity as male, Hungarian authorities refused to amend the record because VP had not undergone surgical transition.

    The CJEU ruled that this practice violates the GDPR, which guarantees individuals the right to correct inaccurate personal data. The court emphasised that the accuracy of gender data should reflect a person’s lived identity, not their assigned sex at birth. Furthermore, it clarified that EU law supersedes national laws that fail to provide legal recognition procedures for transgender people.

USA: LAPD officer shoots and kills ‘kidnapped’ trans woman after she calls 911 for help

USA: West Virginia Republicans pass horrifying bill allowing child genital exams without parental consent [LGBTQ Nation]

  • West Virginia Republicans have passed S.B. 456, allowing health care providers to examine a child’s genitals without parental consent to determine "biological sex." An earlier version would have allowed teachers to perform these exams. Democrats condemned the bill as an egregious invasion of privacy, but it passed both chambers and now awaits Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s signature.

USA: HHS to propose nationwide ban on insurance coverage for gender-affirming care

USA: Navy orders trans troops to leave or face forced removal [Pink News]

  • The US Navy has ordered trans service members to voluntarily leave by March 28 or face forced removal under new policy guidance. The directive, signed by Navy Secretary Terence Emmert, stated that the military recognises only male and female sexes and that they deny biology to deem sex “immutable.”

Transgender how do you know? by H Lee Hurley

MEDIA

US trans journalists report by-lines being retroactively changed [Jael Holzman]

SPORT

ICO to elect new President this week

  • There are three main candidates, all of whom have made targeting trans people a key part of their pitch to be elected. There have been reports that the outgoing president, who has stood firm in his refusal to ban trans women, has been pushing people to vote for Kirsty Coventry, the only woman in the running.

    Until recently, she was not anti-trans. She is now.

    Lord Seb Coe is seen as the favourite. He has already banned trans women as the head of World Athletics. The second favourite is Juan Antonio Samaranch, who this month assured people he would target trans people if elected, such is the world we live in.

    With the Olympics set to take place in LA in 2028, I full expect a ban on trans women - which goes against the Olympian Charter - to be in place.

Trump administration targets Maine with sweeping federal investigations over transgender sports policy [Pro Publica]

  • The Trump administration has launched multiple federal investigations into Maine’s policies on transgender student athletes, following the president’s public clash with Governor Janet Mills over a high school pole vaulting event won by a trans girl. Six federal agencies, including the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice, are now targeting the state, with the USDA even halting university research funding, all because of one trans child.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NHS strikes £85,000 deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink as part of a wider programme [Telegraph, 10/3/25]

NHS strikes deal with Musk’s Starlink The Daily Telegraph10 Mar 2025By James Warrington ELON MUSK’S satellite technology is set to be deployed to help keep GPS in rural parts of England connected to the internet. The NHS has awarded a contract worth £85,000 to Starlink, which is part of Mr Musk’s Spacex, to help provide internet services to GP practices and administrative offices in the North East and North Cumbria. The five-year contract with NHS North of England covers the hardware and installation of 15 Starlink receivers, forming part of a wider programme to upgrade its network connections. Satellite technology is increasingly being used to tackle so-called “not spots” in remote rural areas, where it is not economically viable to provide mobile and broadband services to small pockets of the population. Starlink is one of a number of companies vying to plug these gaps. Bt-owned EE and Virgin Media O2 are already trialling the technology, while Vodafone last week launched a new joint venture with Texas-based AST Spacemobile to roll out satellite connectivity across the UK. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos is gearing up for the launch of a rival service – Project Kuiper – in Britain as soon as this year. Article Name:NHS strikes deal with Musk’s Starlink Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By James Warrington Start Page:19 End Page:19

Burkes being berks [News Letter]

  • Members of the bigoted Irish evangelical Burke family caused a disruption at a high-profile gala dinner in Washington, DC, attended by Irish premier Micheál Martin. Three family members interrupted a speech by NFL coach Dan Quinn at the Ireland Funds dinner, shouting loudly before being forcibly removed by security and law enforcement.

    The Burkes have been involved in high-profile legal disputes in Ireland, particularly around Enoch Burke’s suspension as a teacher for allegedly harassing a trans student who wasn’t even in his class. Burke was later jailed for contempt of court after continuing to show up at his former school despite a restraining order. When finally released from prison, he went back to standing outside the school again. The last I read he owed around €250,000 in fines, if I remember correctly.

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here.

Monday 17 March

  • St Patrick’s Day

  • British Sign Language Week begins, 17 March - 24 March

  • New Ofcom rules on online safety come into force

  • Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) hears case brought by Northern Irish journalists alleging covert surveillance by PSNI

  • Tommy Robinson in court on terrorism charges

Tuesday 18 March

  • Neurodiversity Celebration Week begins, 18 March - 24 March

Wednesday 19 March

  • Women’s and Equalities, oral questions, House of Commons, 11.30am, including “What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against LGBT+ people?”

  • Prime Minister’s Questions, House of Commons, 12pm

  • Matt Hancock at Covid-19 inquiry hearing to be questioned on procurement

  • Report: WMO State of the Global Climate

Thursday 20 March

  • Impact of the USA's withdrawal from the World Health Organization on the global treatment of HIV/AIDS, oral questions, House of Lords, 11am+

  • 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, debate, House of Lords, 11am+

  • Spring Equinox

  • IOC elects new President for the Olympics. All three leading candidates have pledged to ban trans women.

  • Report: World Happiness

Friday 21 March

  • World Down Syndrome Day

  • World Poetry Day

  • Plaid Cymru spring conference

  • 11 years ago: Crimea formally annexed

Saturday 22 March

  • Lib Dems spring conference begins

Sunday 23 March

  • 5th anniversary of first UK Covid lockdown

SHORTS

  • Peers who sat in the House of Lords during the last parliament have given a combined £109m in political donations, almost £50m of which was contributed before they secured their seats. [Guardian US]

  • The United States has been added to the Civicus Monitor Watchlist, which identifies countries that the global civil rights watchdog believes are currently experiencing a rapid decline in civic freedoms. [Guardian US]

THE PAPERS

It was another somewhat quiet week again with almost the same number of articles printed about trans people as last week (14 v 13).

Of those, the Telegraph alone printed nine, while the Times had four and the Guardian/Observer had none.

The other article was found in the Mail, whose anti-trans output has halved almost every week since the start of February when they were doing eight or nine a week. I have nothing to offer to explain that drop, but I very much doubt it is because they have caught themselves on.

With the IOC selecting their next president on Thursday, and the winner guaranteed to be anti-trans, along with the imminent For Women Scotland ruling, I do not expect next week to be quiet.

11 of the 14 articles were written fully, or in part, by cis men.

They all continue to ignore what Donald Trump’s administration is doing to trans people in the US.

Quoted, mentioned or featured this week: Anna Melamed (x3), Fiona McAnena, Helen Joyce, JK Rowling, Keira Bell, Kellie-Jay Keen, Let Women Speak, Maya Forstater, Melanie Newman (x3), Paul Conrathe, Rose Cross, Sandie Peggie, Sascha Bailey, Sex Matters (x3), Stephanie Davies-Arai, Transgender Trend

Whose bylines were on all these articles? Jonathan Ames (x3), Martin Evans, Daniel Sanderson, Michael Deacon (x3), Fiona Parker, Julia Llewellyn Smith, Sam Merrriman, Liz Harris, Mark Ludlow, Ben Spencer

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 10 March - Sunday 16 March

Monday Total: 2

The Guardian [0]
The Times [0]
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [2]
Group that said ‘no woman has a penis’ kicked out on women’s day Gender-critical pressure group felt ‘harassed and upset’ after council worker demanded they leave event The Daily Telegraph10 Mar 2025By Martin Evans Crime editor Members of Let Women Speak were asked to leave the event in Darlington at the weekend A COUNCIL worker attempted to evict a group from an International Women’s Day event after they distributed leaflets declaring “no woman has a penis”. The incident occurred on Saturday in Darlington as women gathered at a council-run venue to celebrate the fight for female equality and liberation. Representatives from the gender-critical pressure group, Let Women Speak, attended the function but were told they were not welcome and were even warned the police would be called if they did not leave. The leaflets stated that women do not have penises and men do not have vaginas, and claimed transitioning children is “profound child abuse”. Let Women Speak was just one of a number of groups that had gathered at the venue, Number Forty Skinnergate, which is described as a “safe space for everyone on a night out in Darlington town centre”. But the delegates from the group, which describes itself as a “global women’s rights movement”, were told that they were not welcome at the event because the leaflets breached the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). A video posted on social media shows a dispute between two members of the group and Andrew Allison, the former Darlington borough council community resilience officer who now runs the venue. In the exchange, he is heard telling the women: “This building is a safe space for all on Friday and Saturday nights, [the] Public Sector Equality Duty, requires us to foster good relations between all groups and this isn’t doing that I’m afraid, so I am going to have to ask you to leave.” One of the delegates countered that the slogans on the leaflet were “statements of fact” or “objective reality”. But Mr Allison said while he was not disputing anything on the leaflet, his role was to ensure the PSED was applied. He said while the venue was advertised as a “safe space”, it was not for those who voiced “those opinions”. The PSED is a law that requires public bodies to promote equality and reduce discrimination. Asked about freedom of speech, Mr Allison replied: “Freedom of speech is fine but as far as Darlington borough council is concerned freedom of speech doesn’t mean thoughtless speech and we have a duty under the Equality Act and unfortunately are going to have to ask you to leave because that doesn’t comply with what we do.” Despite being warned that the police would be called if they did not leave, the Let Women Speak delegates refused and stayed until the event finished at around 3pm. Rose Cross, the North East coordinator for Let Women Speak said the exchange had left members feeling upset and harassed. She told The Telegraph: “There were a number of organisations there representing women’s rights, including sexbased rights and protecting women’s spaces and prisons. The event was open to the public and everyone was welcome to discuss their views. “Mr Allison stormed in, it felt very aggressive. He demanded to speak to the organiser and he talked about protecting safe spaces, but where was our free speech and our safe space? “We felt very harassed, upset and Darlington council are failing women and free speech. We felt discriminated against for being women and for holding perfectly legal views.” Kellie-jay Keen, the founder of Let Women Speak, said it showed how local authorities had been “coerced and manipulated to accept the activist version of rights”. Darlington borough council has been contacted for comment. Article Name:Group that said ‘no woman has a penis’ kicked out on women’s day Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Martin Evans Crime editor Start Page:9 End Page:9
Trans doctors can use lavatories of their choice, says hospital trust The Daily Telegraph10 Mar 2025By Daniel Martin deputy political editor A LONDON hospital trust has told trans employees they can use the lavatories and changing rooms of their choice in a challenge to Wes Streeting. Guy’s and St Thomas’ trust’s new transgender equality policy tells all staff they must refer to everyone by the pronoun of their choice, even if they do not believe in gender ideology. It also advises managers not to disclose the trans status of a doctor or nurse to patients, which campaigners fear may mean patients are not guaranteed intimate care by someone of the same sex. The guidance comes after eight nurses from Darlington took their trust to court after being forced to share a changing room with a biological man who identifies as a woman. The nurses have drawn up proposed NHS guidance, being considered by Mr Streeting, the Health Secretary, under which trans people would not be allowed in women’s showers and changing rooms. The guidance notes there is no “hierarchy” under equality laws and the rights of trans people should not be prioritised over the rights of women. Mr Streeting asked the nurses to send him their proposed guidance as he considers what moves to make. NHS Fife is currently in a legal dispute after Sandie Peggie, a nurse, had to share a changing room with a trans woman. Fiona Mcanena, the director of campaigns at the charity Sex Matters, said: “The leadership of Guy’s and St Thomas’ needs to get a grip, pull this new policy and start again if the trust is to avoid becoming the latest NHS trust to face costly legal action because of reality-denying absurd policies and practices.” The trust’s trans policy, seen by The Telegraph, was drawn up by equalities officers and LGBT members of staff. Controversially, it recognises “non-binary” identities, which are not recognised in law. It sets an aim for all NHS staff in its two hospitals to be trained on “non-binary staff and gender non-conforming identities”. The trust also said it would collect data on the gender staff identify as, but not their biological sex, in defiance of the Government. On toilets and changing rooms, the guidance states: “Facilities: provide access to gender-appropriate facilities. Gender-neutral options will also be made available where possible. “Transgender people are accommodated according to the gender they identify with, rather than sex registered at birth, regardless of where they are on the transition journey.” The guidance states that “everyone is addressed using the names and pronouns that they request at that moment in time”. It adds: “On joining the trust, they should always be referred to by their chosen name and gender identity. If the line manager is aware of their trans status, it is inappropriate for them to disclose that information. “Some people may prefer to be more public about their trans status, but this decision needs to lie with the individual.” The guidance also states that the trust will implement “inclusive recruitment”, which means they will appoint the most suitable candidates regardless of “gender, sexual orientation, marital or civil partnership status, disability, race, age, religion or belief, pregnancy or maternity or gender reassignment”. That includes eight of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The one that is missing is “sex”. The document also states: “Support the creation and promotion of training for all staff on LGBT+ inclusion, with specific modules on transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming identities as part of the trust LGBT+ inclusivity programme.” A spokesman for Guy’s and St Thomas’ said: “Transgender staff, like all our staff, deserve to be treated with kindness and respect in line with our Trust values. As an inclusive employer, it is important we ensure everyone is supported regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Article Name:Trans doctors can use lavatories of their choice, says hospital trust Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daniel Martin deputy political editor Start Page:9 End Page:9

Tuesday Total: 2

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
Campaigner pushes for ban on child cross-sex hormones Jonathan Ames - Legal Editor A prominent former patient of the child gender clinic Gids has applied for a judicial review of the failure to ban NHS cross-sex hormone treatment. Lawyers for Keira Bell, who was put on puberty blockers aged 16 after attending the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, have issued a High Court claim arguing that the government’s decision to ban puberty blockers for children while allowing cross-sex hormone treatment to continue was “irrational” and therefore “unlawful”. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, accused Wes Streeting, the health secretary, of “doing nothing to prevent experimental drugs being given to vulnerable teenagers by unscrupulous, unregulated overseas clinics”. Cross-sex hormone therapy changes physical sexual characteristics, while puberty blockers delay the onset of puberty by suppressing the release of hormones. In the judicial review application, Bell and two other claimants argue that the effects of both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children “are profound and often irreversible”. The claim referred to academic research published in January that found more than 10,000 children in England alone had had a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Therefore, said Bell and the other claimants, the decision to allow cross-sex hormone treatment to continue “exposes each of those children . . . to a risk of potentially profound harm”. Stephanie Davies-Arai, from the campaign group Transgender Trend, said the “practical effect” of banning puberty blockers while allowing crosssex hormone treatment was to encourage private providers to prescribe hormones, a “potentially even worse option”, she claimed. The health department said officials were “putting in place additional safeguards to oversee the use of cross-sex hormones”.
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [1]
In the US, under the orders of Donald Trump, male criminals who say they identify as women are being removed from women’s prisons, and placed in men’s prisons. The Guardian, for one, seems horrified by what it calls this “sweeping attack on trans rights”. And, unsurprisingly, the criminals themselves agree. Speaking to The Guardian, a trans inmate whose name was given simply as Whitney wailed: “I’m just continuing to be punished for existing.” No, dear. You’re being punished for breaking the law. Just like everyone else in prison. Yes, I’m sure you’d much rather serve your sentence in a prison full of women than in a prison full of men – who wouldn’t? I suspect, however, that most inmates who are female would rather not be surrounded by inmates who are male. Especially at shower time. Here in Britain, of course, we had a row about this very issue two years ago, when it emerged that a trans criminal going by the name of Isla Bryson had been placed in a prison for women. Given that Bryson had been convicted of raping two women – that is, of the old-fashioned, biologically female variety – it felt rather like letting a fox into a henhouse merely because the fox had stuck a couple of feathers behind its ears and announced that it was now a hen, too.
Michael Deacon

Wednesday Total: 2

The Guardian [0]
The Times [0]
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [2]
CPR guide says women are ‘people with breasts’ Activists accuse St John Ambulance of ‘misogyny’ after charity issues new guidance on resuscitation The Daily Telegraph12 Mar 2025By Fiona Parker Senior news reporter A guide by St John Ambulance referred to doing CPR on ‘people with breasts’ ST JOHN Ambulance has been accused of “erasing women” after issuing guidance on how to perform CPR on “people with breasts”. Its website stated that it aimed to address the fact that “people with breasts are statistically less likely to receive bystander CPR than men”. However, gender-critical campaigners said a failure to use the word “women” in the guide was “an unfortunate example of misogyny” in “a life-ordeath situation”. The first aid charity is the latest organisation to come under fire for using “gender-neutral language” to be more inclusive of transgender people. The guide, which also explains how to use a defibrillator, advises readers that they should “remove bras or binding” if the casualty is wearing one, to reach their bare chest. “Binders” are a form of underwear usually worn by females as they transition to become males in order to temporarily flatten breasts and create a more masculine appearance. Women’s Rights Network (WRN) posted a screenshot of the webpage’s title on X, writing: “Immediate medical treatment is required for @ Stjohn Ambulance. They’ve developed chronic amnesia and forgotten the word for half the population.” The post provoked a series of responses, with some people pointing out the “double standards” of referring to “men” in the same headline. Cathy Larkman, one of WRN’S directors, told The Telegraph that “from our point of view, this is just another example of misogyny”, adding: “It’s another incident of erasing women.” Some commenters on the X post pointed out that St John Ambulance had run a campaign to tackle gender disparity in CPR. In a separate page, it cited research showing that “a third of Brits are afraid to give CPR to a woman because they are worried about touching breasts”. The text then referred to “women” throughout. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said: “It beggars belief that some of the worst offenders when it comes to butchering factual, sex-based language are medical organisations.” A St John Ambulance spokesman said: “According to research, women are less likely than men to receive lifesaving CPR in public because people are afraid to touch breasts. For Interna- tional Women’s Day this week we revisited our CPR bra campaign that focused on saving more women’s lives to remind people of the first aid steps to improve women’s chances of survival. “This reluctance to give CPR affects every ‘body’ with breasts and the CPR guidance on our web pages seeks to convey this important message. We have reviewed the title of the CPR guidance on our website and are improving the wording to ensure it reflects everybody St John seeks to help.” Article Name:CPR guide says women are ‘people with breasts’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Fiona Parker Senior news reporter Start Page:8 End Page:8
Police trainer called anti-trans women ‘a bunch of lesbians’ The Daily Telegraph12 Mar 2025By Telegraph Reporter A MET Police training officer called anti-transgender women a “bunch of lesbians”, a tribunal has heard. LGBT+ training officer Sgt Karl Eccott allegedly made the comments in a session with then-trainee Melanie Newman, who is now bringing harassment and direct discrimination claims against the London force. Ms Newman who is a Detective Constable based in the child abuse investigation team, claimed the Met Police had a “hostile environment” for anyone with gender critical opinions. Ms Newman, a former journalist, told the tribunal held in Croydon, south London, she was suing because she had “no other choice”. She went on to list more “symptoms” of what she called an anti-gender critical narrative at the Met. She mentioned the force had invited trans activists to speak who she said were “extremely hostile” to gender critical (GC) people. Eva Echo, an activist, told a 2023 Trans Day of Visibility (TDOV) seminar that trans people needed to be “saved” from gender critical people, who had “warped, twisted views”, Ms Newman claimed. She added: “I saw it not as an isolated offensive incident but as a reflection of institutional discrimination against gender critical people.” Ms Newman, who describes herself as gender critical, a belief in only two sexes, claimed speakers at the event delivered a one-sided “invective” and she “couldn’t believe” what she was hearing. She added: “The impression I had was of someone who deeply loathed GC women. I did not perceive Echo as a woman but as an angry man.” She later complained internally but was told no further action would be taken because Miss Echo was not an employee. Ms Newman added that at one point, the audience at New Scotland Yard “hissed” when the name of Posie Parker, an activist and founder of Let Women Speak, was mentioned. The five-day tribunal continues. Article Name:Police trainer called anti-trans women ‘a bunch of lesbians’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Telegraph Reporter Start Page:8 End Page:8

Thursday Total: 2

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [1]
Don’t remove biological women’s rights, just open a trans-only gym The Daily Telegraph13 Mar 2025 By now, even the most naive progressive should have grasped the following uncomfortable truth. Granting rights to trans women all too often entails removing rights from biological women. The latest proof arrived this week, with the appalling row over a women’s gym. Natalee Barnett, the owner of The Girls Spot in London, had announced that the gym is to be “a single-sex space for biological women”. Therefore, no one who is biologically male will be permitted to use it – and yes, that includes males who identify as women. This, she explained, is to ensure her members’ safety. The response was inevitable. Vast numbers of trans activists have bombarded Ms Barnett with the most virulent personal abuse. Not one of them appears to realise that their messages effectively prove Ms Barnett’s point about the importance of female safety. Or, as JK Rowling put it on X: “‘Let us in your gym or we’ll kill you,’ say men who pose no risk to women whatsoever.” She’s right. It’s time to face facts: trans fanatics are growing dangerous. After all, if this is how screamingly enraged they become when a young woman attempts to create just one small all-female space, we can’t afford to ignore it. In any case, their objections are not remotely rational. Trans women have not suddenly been banned from exercising. Across London, and indeed the rest of the country, there are countless gyms open to people of both sexes and every imaginable gender identity. Yet these raging ideologues won’t allow biological women to have even one little gym of their own, just for them? Evidently not. Hence the point I made at the start. If, as the activists’ mantra insists, trans women are women, then biological women must lose the right to female-only gyms. Because all women must be allowed entry – including women who are male. Of course, rather than bellowing at Ms Barnett for opening a female-only gym, the fanatics could have responded by simply opening a trans-only gym. I wonder how many biological women would have angrily protested against that. If I had to guess a number, I’d probably go for zero. But then, I doubt I’ll ever find out whether I’m right, because the fanatics won’t open one. I suspect they’re much happier just screaming at innocent women, instead. Article Name:Don’t remove biological women’s rights, just open a trans-only gym Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:7 End Page:7
Michael Deacon

Friday Total: 4

Saturday Total: 0

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
Gender-critical activists ‘tracked by terrorism unit’ Liz Harris, Jonathan Ames - Legal Editor Feminist groups that argue men cannot become women were being monitored by counterterror police, a tribunal has been told. The revelation emerged as part of a claim by a Scotland Yard detective that she suffered discrimination for her so-called gender-critical beliefs while attending two Metropolitan Police training sessions. It has also emerged as part of the legal action that Scotland Yard paid nearly £26,000 for advisory services on gender and race. Melanie Newman, a detective constable who joined the force three years ago, accused an officer who ran one of the courses of referring to “terfs” — an acronym meaning trans-exclusionary radical feminists — as “a bunch of lesbians who wrongly think it is rape if a trans woman has sexual intercourse with a woman without the trans woman revealing their biological sex”. During the hearing in Croydon, south London, an employment tribunal heard evidence relating to a meeting of the force’s trans and non-binary forum that was held in late 2022. One attendee at that meeting was said to have reported that while the “anti-trans movement may not look offensive to the average onlooker” they were “heavily resourced and are damaging to minority groups”. That person was said to have gone on to tell the meeting that a community engagement officer from SO15 — the Met’s counterterrorism command — who was responsible for assessing potential threats from right-wing groups, “echoed” the view that the feminist groups were “extremely smart”. The hearing was also told that Scotland Yard had paid £25,817.14 to Saba Ali, who describes herself as a “distinguished advocate with extensive expertise in addressing intersectionality, cultural abuse, and the complexities marginalised communities face”. Newman, a former journalist, is suing the Metropolitan Police for harassment under equality legislation on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs. The hearing continues.
Daily Mail [1]
Midwife? No, these days she’s a‘lead perinatal practitioner’ Daily Mail15 Mar 2025By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Key role: Natalie Quarry and Helen George on Call the Midwife FOR centuries millions of women have had reason to thank midwives for their vital role on one of the most important days of their life. But now it seems they might have been, ahem, labouring under a misapprehension. For apparently the word midwife ‘upholds the patriarchy’ and its use ‘subordinates all who give birth’. This is according to researchers who claim the title is not inclusive of transgender mothers and should be renamed as ‘lead perinatal practitioner’. A fellow of the Royal College of Midwives has written a paper to be treated as a ‘blueprint’ for the role to become more gender-neutral. The research, titled From Midwife To Lead Perinatal Practitioner: A Utopian Vision, refers to a ‘birthing person’ or ‘pregnant body’ instead of a woman and argues a name change is needed as ‘trans and non-binary people increasingly require access to midwifery services’. It adds: ‘The presence of gender-diverse people accessing “maternity” services disrupts such norms, because it forces us to confront how words like “midwife,” “midwifery,” and “maternity” are excluding, for example, of trans and non-binary ‘Subordinates all who give birth’ people. A move away from the title of “Midwife” to “Lead Perinatal Practitioner” would be trailblazing in reducing inequalities through the deconstruction of harmful patriarchal constructs and decolonisation.’ Dr Sally Pezaro, a fellow of the Royal College of Midwives and Nursing and Midwifery Council panel member, and Dr John Pendleton, a midwife and lecturer in midwifery at the University of Northampton, wrote the paper. But critics point out that the title is recognisable to women globally and warn changing it could be damaging. Anna Melamed, midwifery lecturer at the University of the West of England, said: ‘It is women as a sex category who are pregnant and give birth, regardless of how they identify... Midwives are one of the few professions who proudly and clearly stand by and on the side of the woman.’ Helen Joyce, of human rights charity Sex Matters, added: ‘Maternity services are under enough pressure without ideological nonsense being foisted on them.’ Dr Pezaro declined to comment and Dr Pendleton did not respond to a request for comment. Article Name:Midwife? No, these days she’s a‘lead perinatal practitioner’ Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Sam Merriman Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:35 End Page:35
Telegraph [2]
Way of the World Michael Deacon The Daily Telegraph - Saturday15 Mar 2025 Acouple of years ago, I wrote a column making fun of the NHS trusts that had, in all seriousness, taken to asking male patients if they were pregnant. But now, I fear, the joke is on me. Or so it would seem, looking at the headlines this week on certain newspapers’ websites. “Brit Man Shares Joy at Discovering He’s Pregnant,” trumpeted the Daily Star. “First Man in UK to Fall Pregnant Naturally Reveals He Wants More Kids,” proclaimed the Daily Record. “Inside UK Man’s Pregnancy,” whooped the Mirror. Naturally I couldn’t wait to read about this incredible turn of events. When I was young, the idea that men could become pregnant would have been considered absurd. Literally inconceivable. Yet now, astonishingly, it had actually come to pass. What could possibly explain such a miracle? A few lines into each breathless write-up, the answer was revealed. The subject of the story, it turned out, was a biological female who happens to identify as a man. In the expectant parent’s own words: “I’m just a man who has a vagina.” To be clear: I wish nothing but the very best to this trans gentleman and his partner (a biologically male man who describes himself as gay). I’m sure they’ll make wonderful parents. All the same, I’m not desperately impressed by newspapers choosing to publish headlines like “Man Gets Pregnant”. Whether their journalists are zealous adherents of gender ideology, or just engaged in a cynical pursuit of online clicks, the fact remains that the person giving birth in this case possesses female reproductive organs. And people who possess female reproductive organs have been giving birth throughout the entire history of the human race. Indeed, experts estimate that, in the 300,000 or so years since the emergence of homo sapiens, it’s happened roughly 117 billion times. On the whole, therefore, this story is about as newsworthy as “Man Goes to Lavatory” or “Day Follows Night”. All of which means that, very sadly, I for one am unlikely ever to experience the magic of being pregnant. Still, perhaps it’s for the best. Women always complain that giving birth is extremely painful. But I can’t help suspecting that, if I somehow had to force a nine-pound baby out of my body, the pain would be quite a lot worse. Remarkable, isn’t it. In this country we hardly ever seem to deport foreign criminals. And then, on one of the rare occasions we actually manage to do it, we end up letting the criminal back in again. That’s what’s happened in the case of Samuel Frimpong, a convicted fraudster who was deported to Ghana 12 years ago. Now, we learn, a British immigration judge has allowed him to return to the UK – because Frimpong said that being separated from his two children, who live in Britain, had made him feel depressed. The judge was told that the fraudster’s absence had made the children unhappy, too, because they found it “difficult to explain to others at school” where their father was. So, having weighed up all the arguments, the judge concluded that the deportation order must be revoked, because it constituted an “unjustifiable interference” with the fraudster’s right to a family life. I’m sure Frimpong and his children are delighted by the ruling. But hang on just a moment. If a foreign criminal can use this argument against being deported, why shouldn’t a British criminal use it against being sent to prison? “You can’t possibly jail me for my crimes, Your Honour – because separating me from my children would make me feel terribly depressed. And think how difficult my poor kids would find it to explain to others at school where their father was. It really would constitute an unjustifiable interference with my right to a family life. “And anyway, surely the law’s got to treat British criminals the same as foreign criminals. We wouldn’t want anyone to think we’ve got a two-tier justice system, would we?” Across Europe, sales of Teslas – Elon Musk’s range of flashy electric cars – appear to be plummeting. In January, reports the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, 50 per cent fewer Teslas were sold than in the same month the previous year. Sales are also down in Australia, as well as in California, the biggest US market for electric cars. And, according to Time magazine, the explanation for the slump is simple. Many potential customers are put off by Mr Musk’s political views. If so, they aren’t the first. Back in November 2022, the American actress Alyssa Milano expressed her indignation at Mr Musk’s purchase of Twitter – because, she believed, the social media site was now enabling the spread of “hate and white supremacy”. So she announced that, in protest, she had ditched her Tesla – in favour of an electric VW. To which, I couldn’t help feeling, the only response was: if you think the man behind Tesla is a Nazi, dear, wait till you hear about the man who commissioned the first Volkswagen. Austrian chap. Little black moustache. Bit of a temper. Twitter wasn’t around in his day, but if it had been, I imagine that his tweets would have been fairly problematic, too. Article Name:Way of the World Michael Deacon Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Start Page:16 End Page:16
Thank God I didn’t change sex, otherwise I’d never be a father The photographer David’s son, who was close to transitioning but is now having a baby with his girlfriend, tells Julia Llewellyn Smith why Britain has got gender all wrong

Sunday Total: 2

The Observer [0]
The Sunday Times [1]
Reopening the case against puberty blockers Children with gender dysphoria will be treated with the banned drugs if a new trial wins ethical approval. What is the science behind them, asks Ben Spencer Opponents of the ban on puberty blockers protest in London last year. Next image › The launch of a clinical trial is usually met with a reaction somewhere between polite indifference and deafening silence. The new Pathways study, however, is not that kind of trial. Last month, NHSfunded scientists announced they were seeking ethical approval to test banned puberty blockers on children with gender incongruence. If regulators give consent — a decision expected in coming weeks — the £10.7 million trial will start by the end of the year. The backlash has been immediate. On one side, some campaigners argue that trialling such risky drugs is unethical, tantamount to treating children as guinea pigs and little more than a loophole for the continued use of outlawed treatments. On the other side, equally vocal campaigners argue that the ban — introduced last May by the Conservative health secretary Victoria Atkins and made indefinite in December by her Labour successor, Wes Streeting — unfairly denies puberty blockers to children struggling with their identity, and risks a surge in suicides among young trans people. Research is all very well, they argue, but not at the cost of routine access to what they claim are safe and proven drugs. Between the two sides, struggling to be heard above the din, are doctors who point out that puberty blockers were banned for routine use precisely because further research is needed. A trial, they argue, is how we find out more. Baroness Cass is the paediatrician whose highly critical review into gender identity services led to the withdrawal of the routine use of blockers and the closure of Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at the Tavistock Centre in north London. Her 388-page report, published last April, was seen as a vindication for those who felt that the use of puberty blockers was leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes for children. But Cass’s review also recommended a trial, and she is sticking to her guns. She says it is the gulf between the two sides of the debate, together with the dearth of robust evidence about the benefits and harms of the drugs, which makes a trial essential. “In the absence of this evidence, people draw their own conclusions,” Cass says, in her first public comments since the trial was announced. “There are very strongly held but polarised views on the use of these medications, with some people thinking they should be stopped entirely for young people with gender dysphoria, and others arguing they should be much more freely available. Both these positions have some cogent arguments, but the two positions are incompatible. From a clinical research perspective, this is called equipoise. We do need further research to fill some of the evidence gaps, to remove uncertainty for the young people, their families and clinicians.” The atmosphere around this issue is so febrile that the government has already had to see off a judicial review against the puberty blockers ban, brought last year by the campaign group TransActual UK and the Good Law Project, led by the activist lawyer Jolyon Maugham. Now it is being threatened with another. Lawyers for a group campaigning on the other side of the argument, led by a “detransitioned” patient, Keira Bell, and a psychotherapist, James Esses, have threatened a judicial review against the Health Research Authority if it gives ethical approval for the Pathways trial. Puberty blockers are a class of drugs called gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, which suppress the release of sex hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen. Similar drugs are used to lower hormone levels in breast cancer and prostate cancer patients, and for those with heavy periods or endometriosis. Among boys, they limit the growth of facial and body hair, prevent voice deepening and limit the growth of genitalia. In girls, treatment limits or stops breast development and stops menstruation. At first they were used to temporarily stop puberty in children who started too early, usually before the age of eight, but began to be used for gender dysphoria in the UK in 2011, based on the “Dutch protocol” developed by Peggy Cohen- Kettenis, a psychologist from Utrecht. According to this protocol, blockers were useful for two key reasons. First, they provided a “pause” to the changes that come with puberty, allowing children identifying as transgender “time to think” before making a decision about their future. Second, they were thought to improve the ability of those born as one sex to “pass” as the other sex in later life. The Cass review found this was “particularly important” for boys who become transgender women, “who were able to access puberty blockers before developing facial hair and dropping their voice”. But it also found little evidence these drugs worked to reduce the psychological distress of gender dysphoria. The Tavistock’s initial study, on 44 children given puberty blockers between 2011 and 2014, found no statistically significant improvement in psychological wellbeing. Indeed, some children saw an increase in suffering. An independent review also found there was no evidence of a rise in suicides since puberty-blocking drugs were restricted at the Tavistock. Instead of reporting these negative findings, the study was buried by clinical staff until 2020. Meanwhile, use of the drugs had become routine, as increasing numbers of children were referred to the service. As many as 2,000 children are thought to have been given blockers — as Anna Hutchinson, a senior clinical psychologist at Gids, told the journalist Hannah Barnes: “There were no referral criteria. We were accepting everyone.” The fundamental problem, according to Sir Jonathan Montgomery, professor of healthcare law at University College London and former chairman of the Health Research Authority, is that “these treatments had moved from use in a research context to business-as-usual usage at the Tavistock without proper evaluation of the research data”. But rather than recommending an outright ban, Cass became persuaded during her investigation that a small group might benefit from puberty blockers. A re-analysis of the early Tavistock data found that 9 to 29 per cent of those given the drugs saw a reliable improvement in distress levels, 15 to 34 per cent saw a deterioration and 37 to 70 per cent saw no change. Determining whether some children might benefit, and identifying which fell into that category, was Cass’s main argument for carrying out a trial. Without this certainty, some families with children convinced of their gender dysphoria would continue to seek out the drugs from overseas or on the black market. The researchers at King’s College London, who will lead the trial among patients at new NHS gender dysphoria services in London, Bristol and Liverpool, and possibly another three centres, have decided not to release the study design before it has received final ethical approval. They are also not responding to inquiries. The question at the heart of this debate is whether it is possible for doctors, amid all the politicisation and pressure provoked by this issue, with all the baggage of social media contagion, image problems, overdiagnosis and culture warfare that comes with it, to reliably distinguish between the minority of children who might benefit from blockers and those for whom they could do lasting harm. Dr Hannah Ryan, a specialist registrar in clinical pharmacology at Royal Liverpool University Hospital, is sceptical that it would even be possible to design a good study on the question. “We have no way of predicting which children will persist with gender dysphoria into adulthood and who will simply desist,” says Ryan, a member of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, an increasingly influential group of doctors campaigning against the trial. “Historically, around three quarters will desist without any intervention at all. You could not design inclusion criteria for a trial that would exclude those kids who will just simply grow out of this and not become transgender adults.” Before carrying out a trial, Ryan argues, the NHS should track down the 2,000 or so children treated with puberty blockers at the Tavistock and assess the effects upon them. Cass called for a review of Gids patients but it has proved hard to access medical records. “Before taking risks with children’s health and wellbeing, we are obliged to look at that data,” Ryan says. Sallie Baxendale, professor of clinical neuropsychology at University College London, agrees. Although pausing puberty is temporary, there may be lasting effects. “We currently don’t know what the long-term effects of [interrupting puberty] will be, or whether the brain ever catches up on that period of suspended development,” she says. “A clinical trial looking at the impacts in the short term won’t give us these answers.” 2,000 Number of children treated with blockers at Gids 70% Upper proportion of those on blockers whose distress levels didn’t improve
Mail on Sunday [0]
Sunday Telegraph [1]
Term ‘midwife’ could upset trans people, NHS told The Sunday Telegraph16 Mar 2025By Mark Ludlow THE NHS has been told it should stop using the word “midwife” because it is not inclusive of transgender people. Academics claim in a paper that the term, which has been used since medieval times, is out of date and should be replaced with “lead perinatal practitioner”. Dr John Peddleton, a senior midwifery lecturer from the University of Northampton, and Sally Pezaro, an academic midwife from Coventry University, claim the term “upholds the patriarchy” and “subordinates all who give birth”. They write: “As trans and non-binary people increasingly require access to midwifery services, this paper proposes an alternative professional title that is inclusive and liberates midwives from continuously reinscribing the sex /gender binary in their nomenclature.” Critics branded the proposal “nonsense” and said maternity services were under enough strain already. The research paper, From Midwife to Lead Perinatal Practitioner: A Utopian ‘Term “midwife” upholds rigid understandings of sex and gender in childbearing’ Vision, was published this month in the journal Birth Issues in Perinatal Care. The authors said “midwife” was not flexible enough and “acts as a crucible for the crisis by upholding rigid understandings of sex and gender in childbearing”. They added the term was holding back the profession because it could apply to male or female staff. Dr Pendleton and Dr Pezaro said scrapping the term would “signal a trailblazing contribution towards the eradication of gender inequalities in the reproductive arena by uncoupling the profession from patriarchal oppression inscribed in the sex/gender binary which has hitherto been positioned as the sine qua non of midwifery”. Other academics have dismissed the proposal. “It is women as a sex category who are pregnant and give birth, regardless of how they identify,” Anna Melamed, a midwifery lecturer at the University of the West of England, told the Daily Mail. “Midwives are one of the few professions who proudly and clearly stand by and on the side of women.” Article Name:Term ‘midwife’ could upset trans people, NHS told Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Mark Ludlow Start Page:9 End Page:9

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]><![CDATA[The Trans Agenda: A heartbreaking but positive piece among a sea of media hate]]>https://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-a-heartbreakinghttps://hleehurley.substack.com/p/the-trans-agenda-a-heartbreakingSun, 09 Mar 2025 10:55:41 GMTThe Trans Agenda

[9 March 2025]

Subscribe now

Follow me on Bluesky - @HLeeHurley.substack.com

Transgender: How do you know by H Lee Hurley

UK & IRELAND NEWS

Edinburgh Women’s Aid turns its back on trans women in a shocking betrayal of its values [Edinburgh Evening News]

  • In a disturbing move, Edinburgh Women’s Aid (EWA) has announced it will bar transgender women and non-binary people from its services, ignoring the clear guidance of Scottish Women’s Aid, which has long been trans-inclusive. This decision, which denies vulnerable trans women access to domestic abuse support, including refuge spaces, is a cruel betrayal of its founding principles and a capitulation to anti-trans rhetoric.

    Citing exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, EWA is attempting to justify its discriminatory policy, despite overwhelming evidence that trans women face high rates of domestic abuse and desperately need safe spaces. The move is not about safeguarding, it is about appeasing transphobic pressure groups that have targeted domestic abuse services with abuse, misinformation, and fearmongering.

    By shutting its doors to trans women, Edinburgh Women’s Aid has abandoned its duty to support all survivors, setting a dangerous precedent that could embolden other organisations to follow suit. This exclusionary policy must be condemned and reversed.

IPSO proves once again it is unfit for purpose on trans issues

  • In yet another predictable failure, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has ruled in favour of the anti-trans propaganda broadsheet The Daily Telegraph after the paper deliberately misgendered a transgender footballer, referring to her as a “biological male”, something they are doing with more regularity. The term, widely recognised as a transphobic dog whistle, was defended by the regulator as “relevant” to discussions on transgender athletes, despite the clear harm it causes and the fact it is not relevant at all.


    IPSO, a toothless, industry-run body, has a long history of failing trans people, consistently siding with newspapers that push libellous, inflammatory and misleading narratives. The Telegraph, one of the most fiercely anti-trans publications in the UK, celebrated the ruling, as it continues its relentless campaign against trans inclusion in society. The decision sends yet another dangerous signal that UK media can continue to dehumanise trans people without consequence.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull gets her own section in HOPE not hate’s State of HATE 2025 report [Hope not hate]

Unite calls for politicians to be banned from Pride

I am not a debate design
Tshirts, stickers and more

AROUND THE WORLD

Germany warns trans citizens about travel to the US amid new restrictions [LGBTQ Nation]

  • Germany has warned trans travellers about US entry restrictions after Donald Trump’s order requiring passport gender markers to match birth records. The Foreign Office advises those affected to contact US embassies before travel.

Cass Review criticised as judge blocks anti-trans Trump order

National Crime Victimization Survey ordered to remove all questions related to trans victims

US Democrat Senator turns against trans people (another one)

India: Kerala minister calls for urgent revisions to transgender policy [The Hindu]

  • Kerala’s Minister for Social Justice, R. Bindu, has highlighted the urgent need for updates to the state’s transgender policy, originally introduced in 2015, to reflect the growing acceptance and evolving needs of the community. Speaking at a three-day workshop at the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA), she emphasised that while government initiatives in education, employment, skill development, and gender-affirming healthcare have expanded, their effectiveness depends on direct community involvement. The minister stressed that timely policy revisions are crucial to ensure these programmes reach all those in need, adding that true progress requires trans voices at the forefront of decision-making.

Taiwan: Activists demand Taiwan end forced surgery for trans legal recognition [Taipei Times]

  • Taiwanese activists have petitioned the Control Yuan to investigate the Ministry of the Interior for failing to repeal surgical requirements for trans people seeking legal gender recognition. Despite court rulings declaring the mandate unconstitutional, the ministry continues to enforce a 2008 directive requiring surgery before updating gender markers on official documents. The Ministry of Health and Welfare acknowledged in 2013 that gender recognition should be separate from medical intervention, yet no reforms have followed.

Transgender how do you know? by H Lee Hurley

MEDIA

ITV making a documentary on murder of Brianna Ghey

Lady Gaga calls for protection of trans community from Trump’s anti-trans laws [EuroNews]

  • Lady Gaga has reiterated her support for the trans community, calling the anti-trans laws backed by Donald Trump “unfair” and “wrong.” Speaking with Zane Lowe on Apple Music, she said that trans people deserve love, support, and protection amid rising discrimination.


    Her comments follow her Grammy Awards speech, where she told the audience that trans people are “not invisible.” She emphasised the importance of listening to individual experiences to become a better ally.

SPORT

IOC candidate Samaranch pushes trans athlete ban in bid for presidency

  • Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr., a candidate for the IOC presidency, has vowed to take immediate action on transgender athlete participation, citing the need to “keep women’s sport safe and fair.” The 65-year-old IOC vice-president declared that the IOC should lead the decision-making process, despite its current policy deferring to individual federations. A move like this would go against the Olympics’ own charter but is the position of all the leading Presidential candidates.

    Donald Trump has made blocking trans athletes a pillar of his administration, demanding the IOC overhaul its inclusion policies before LA28.

Senate blocks transgender athlete ban as Trump ramps up enforcement

  • The US Senate blocked Republican efforts to ban transgender women and girls from female sports, with a 51-45 vote failing to clear the filibuster threshold. While Senate Democrats rejected the bill, Trump’s administration is aggressively enforcing a ban, opening investigations and pressuring schools. The NCAA has already complied, barring trans women (which number less than 10) from college sports following Trump’s Title IX ‘reinterpretation’.

    State responses have been divided, with some refusing to follow federal orders. Legal battles loom, with Maine’s governor defying Trump’s threats to cut funding, retorting, "See you in court."

THE WEEK AHEAD

Full parliament business can be viewed here.

Monday 10 March

  • House of Lords, Oral questions, Sexual violence against Sudanese women and girls, 2.30pm+

Tuesday 11 March

  • 🚨Westminster Hall debate, from 4:00pm until 4:30pm, Gender critical beliefs and the Equality Act 2010, brought by Rosie Duffield🚨

  • Early parliamentary elections in Greenland

  • Five years ago: WHO declared Covid-19 pandemic

Wednesday 12 March

  • House of Commons, Prime Minister’s Questions, 12pm

  • Harvey Weinstein in court in New York

  • Report: US inflation

SHORTS

  • The attorney general of Florida has opened a criminal investigation of Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan after the pair were able to fly into the state last week despite facing trial in Romania on charges of rape, sex with a minor, people trafficking and money laundering. [Guardian]

  • A Conservative peer [Archie Hamilton] has been accused of using antisemitic tropes after telling a debate in the Lords that Jewish people should pay for a proposed Holocaust memorial in London because they have “an awful lot of money”. [Guardian]

  • Bacterial vaginosis can be passed to women by male sexual partners, researchers have said, challenging the longstanding view that it is not a sexually transmitted infection. [Guardian]

  • Three in five UK firms are yet to bring in training to prevent workplace sexual harassment, despite new legal obligations on employers. A third say their training is still in development, according to the latest Freeths Employment Survey. [Times]

THE PAPERS

This week, the papers brought us something quite different in the form of a long interview with Caroline Litman, the mother of Alice, who tragically took her own life. I knew this article was coming and, I’m sure Caroline won’t mind me telling you, that she agonised over whether or not to give the interview to the Times considering the damage they have done. But her story, and that of her daughter, is an important one to tell and the Times’ audience is large. Laura Pullman, who wrote the piece, gave assurances and I’m pleased to see that she was true to her word, although I could nit-pick some things. The piece, like Caroline’s book, “Her Name is Alice”, will tear at your heart and, while trans people will read both, they are really for cis people. Encourage them all to seek the book out especially.

Although the topic of that interview, which you can see below, is not positive, I am classing the article as such.

As for the rest of the papers, they are as you would expect, although slightly quieter this week as they were occupied with Donald Trump’s Ukraine madness.

The Telegraph ramped up their attacks on the puberty blocker trial, despite it being recommended by Cass and Cass being the Bible when it comes to UK trans healthcare. ‘Cass is a landmark study’, they say, and everybody must listen to all of it, except that bit over there, it seems.

The Telegraph had eight pieces this week, the same as last week, while the Mail and Times only managed five between them (three and two, with that three also including the interview with Caroline). The Guardian/Observer had nothing. Sonia Sodha has, by my calculation, six chances left to reproduce her one column before the Observer joins Tortoise and she joins the ranks of the unemployed.

In total, there were 13 articles, one positive and 12 attacks. There was one neutral piece that I haven’t counted as it was a correction from the Telegraph which, unlike all their other corrections, they were not happy at having to correct the record.

The Mail, Telegraph and Times are all still ignoring what Trump and the Republicans are doing to trans people in the States.

Quoted, mentioned or featured this week: Ash Regan, Bayswater, Cass, Charlie Kirk, Christian Concern, David Spencer, Donald Trump, Keira Bell, Nigel Farage, Our Duty, Paul Contrathe, Policy Exchange, Reem Alsalem, Sharron Davies, Stephen Kerr (Tory MP)

Whose bylines were on all these articles? David Barrett, Sue Reid, Matt Dathan, Oliver Brown, Simon Johnson, David Bell, Jack Blackburn, Kieran Kelly, Michael Deacon, Michael Searles, Laura Pullman*

*Sunday Times magazine interview with Caroline Litman, do not add to any ‘bad’ lists

Spotted or know something you think I should include in the Trans Agenda?

THE PAPERS Monday 3 March - Sunday 9 March

Monday Total: 0

Tuesday Total: 0

Wednesday Total: 0

Thursday Total: 4

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
Minority and trans criminals could avoid jail under new rules Matt Dathan - Home Affairs Editor Ethnic minority and transgender criminals may be more likely to avoid prison under controversial changes to sentencing guidelines that take effect next month. Updated guidance sent to judges says that they should consider whether an offender is from an ethnic, cultural orreligious minority when deciding whether to impose a custodial or community sentence. Other factors include whether an offender has disclosed that they are transgender, according to the Sentencing Council, an independent body that provides guidance for judges and courts to ensure consistency and transparency across the country. The new guidance has sparked claims of a “two-tier” sentencing policy that treats ethnic minorities favourably. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, was unaware of the new guidance before it was published yesterday and said she would request its reversal. A Ministry of Justice source said she was “incandescent” when made aware. Mahmood said: “The Sentencing Council is entirely independent. These guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government. I will be writing to the council to register my displeasure and recommend reversing this change to guidance. “As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind. “There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch.” Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, called the guidance “completely outrageous” and said it confirmed claims made after the Southport riots last summer of a two-tier approach to sentencing in England and Wales. He said: “Under this guidance there is Change to sentencing rules blatant discrimination against straight white men.” He added: “Under ‘Two-Tier Keir’, our justice system is set to have an antiwhite and anti-Christian bias. Starmer sneered at people who said we have a two-tier justice system — and Angela Rayner labelled them ‘conspiracy theorists’. But here we have it in black and white. It’s unarguable.” Minutes from a meeting of the Sentencing Council that rubber-stamped the guidelines on January 24 reveal that a senior Ministry of Justice official was present at the meeting. However, sources close to Mahmood said the changes were not flagged to ministers. A Labour source pointed out that the last government was aware of the change in guidance during a consultation that ended in February last year. Under the guidance, which take effect from April 1, judges and courts must consider a wider range of factors pertaining to an offender’s background when deciding whether to impose a community or custodial sentence. The guidance relates to the pre-sentence report, drawn up when an offender is from a cohort that judges and courts may deem relevant when considering a sentence. The council states that such a report can be “pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence”. The new guidance adds factors such as whether an offender is from an “ethnic minority, cultural minority and/or faith minority community”, and whether an offender has disclosed that they are transgender. Existing factors taken into consideration when deciding the type of sentence include whether an offender has previously served a custodial sentence; is a young adult aged 18 to 25; is a woman; is pregnant or post-natal; has addiction issues; is suffering from a chronic medical condition or physical disability or mental ill health; or is a victim of domestic abuse. The council insisted that the guidance does not dictate the sentence but simply gives additional information and context to courts when considering the nature of the sentence. A source pointed out that some demographic cohorts suffer disadvantages in the criminal justice system. The changes were based on research that included evidence showing the proportion of black offenders receiving a community order has been lower than the proportion of white offenders. The Sentencing Council, while independent, reports to the Ministry of Justice. It was set up in 2010 and the current chairman is Lord Justice William Davis, a Court of Appeal judge. He took over the role in August 2022.
Daily Mail [2]
NEW TWO-TIER JUSTICE FIASCO Ethnic minority and transgender criminals should get special treatment under rules Tories say could mean softer sentences Daily Mail6 Mar 2025By David Barrett Home Affairs Editor LABOUR faced fresh accusations of a ‘two-tier justice system’ last night amid astonishing moves to give minorities special treatment in court. All ethnic minorities and transgender people convicted of a crime should be treated differently, according to measures due to come into force next month. The Conservatives said they could open the door to softer sentences for minorities, and risked making the courts ‘anti-white and anti-Christian’. And it reignited the row that erupted after last summer’s riots, when critics said different groups were treated differently by the justice system. The new rules, distributed to magistrates and judges by the Sentencing Council yesterday, say it must ‘normally be considered necessary’ for the courts to commission a ‘pre-sentence report’ about criminals if they come from ‘an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community’. The move, which came following lobbying by the respective groups, would also apply to all women and transgender criminals, as well as others such as young adults and addicts. Pre-sentence reports often set out reasons why a jail sentence would be detrimental for an offender. Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said the new measures – which take effect on April 1 – would ‘make a custodial sentence less likely’. He added: ‘Sir Keir Starmer sneered at people who said we have a two-tier justice system. But here we have it in black and white. ‘This is an inversion of the rule of the law. We now have two-tier justice under “Two-Tier Keir”. ‘Under this guidance, our justice system is set to have an anti-white and anti-Christian bias. There is blatant discrimination against straight white men.’ Tory minister Neil O’Brien said on X: ‘What the actual hell – this is just raw two-tier justice.’ After appearing to deny the effect of the guidelines, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood later insisted she would try to reverse them. The new measures completely undermine Labour’s flat denial of a two-tier justice system, leading sources to say Ms Mahmood was ‘incandescent’ when presented with them. David Spencer, of think-tank Policy Exchange and a former detective chief inspector with the Metropolitan Police, said: ‘We shouldn’t be surprised that so many people are convinced there is a two-tier justice system when judges are told to apply completely different standards for women, ethnic minorities and transgender people.’ After being confronted about the changes in the Commons yesterday, Ms ‘This is just raw two-tier justice’ Mahmood issued a statement expressing her ‘displeasure’ at the Sentencing Council’s measures. ‘Today’s updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this Government,’ she said. ‘I will be writing to the Sentencing Council to register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance. ‘As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind. ‘There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch.’ Ms Mahmood insisted the Sentencing Council, which draws up rules which must be followed by judges and magistrates, was ‘entirely independent’. But Mr Jenrick accused her of ‘trying to play dumb’ because her officials attended meetings when the changes were decided upon. It reignited the ‘two-tier’ accusations after last summer’s riots, when critics said police acted more harshly against white, far-Right protesters than they did against other demonstrators, such as those aligned with Black Lives Matter. Reform Party leader Nigel Farage said at the time that the ‘impression of twotier policing has become widespread’. His claim was rejected by Sir Keir and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Sentencing Council chairman Lord Justice William Davis said: ‘The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. ‘PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence.’ Article Name:NEW TWO-TIER JUSTICE FIASCO Publication:Daily Mail Author:By David Barrett Home Affairs Editor Start Page:1 End Page:1
Telegraph [1]
Corrections and Clarifications The Daily Telegraph6 Mar 2025 An article “Transgender police officers to be allowed to strip-search women” (Feb 25) set out some requirements when applying for a gender recognition certificate. We wish to clarify an applicant needs reports from two doctors or a doctor and clinical psychologist, with one confirming gender dysphoria (and any gender affirming treatment), in addition to providing relevant personal evidence, including having lived in their affirmed gender for the previous two years.
School put transitioning girl, 8, ‘on a path to self-destruction’ The Daily Telegraph6 Mar 2025By Telegraph Reporters A CHRISTIAN teacher who was sacked after refusing to call an eight-year-old girl by male pronouns has accused the school of putting the child “on a path to self-destruction”. The teacher, who cannot be named, was dismissed after raising concerns about the safeguarding of a girl who wanted to “socially transition”. Supported by advocacy group Christian Concern, the teacher, who is referred to only as A, has sued Nottinghamshire county council, which runs the school, on the grounds of victimisation for whistle-blowing, unfair dismissal and discrimination because of her Christian beliefs. In her witness statement, Ms A said she was told by the school in 2021 that a child who had been born female, referred to as Child X, would be joining her class but was asked to refer to the child with a male name, which left her uncomfortable. The teacher said staff were provided with literature largely informed by the campaign group Stonewall that was “trans-affirming”, biased and was “ideologically informed and promoted gender ideology over scientific fact”. She said she felt referring to the child using male pronouns would cause “irreversible harm” and that it was “coercive and disrespectful” of the school to make her. Ms A said she felt she needed to ‘She accepted gender dysphoria but said “we should have the humility to put reality first”’ “speak up” about the potential harm the school’s approach could cause Child X. A said she adhered to so-called “gender-critical” beliefs that “being male or female is an immutable biological fact”. She said she accepted gender dysphoria is “a real problem for some people” but that “we should have the humility to put God-given reality first”. She is said to have raised her concerns with the school’s head who told her she had no choice but to use Child X’s preferred pronouns because it was the parent’s request and that she had to “go along with it”. In her witness statement, the teacher said she felt the school was “encouraging Child X on a path to self-destruction”. Ms A said she felt the school had ignored her attempts to navigate the situation by using a gender-neutral name for the child and had shown a “draconian” response to her concerns. The tribunal, which is expected to last until March 14, continues. A teacher at a £17,000-a-year private school who was unfairly sacked after he let his pupils take off their Coivid face coverings has won more than £8,000. Henry Howlett told students they could take their masks off “if they felt anxious” or uncomfortable at a school talent show during the pandemic, an employment tribunal in south London heard. The teacher was sacked from Michael Hall School at Forest Row in December 2020. The judge said his sacking was a “dishonest”, money-driven and “opportunistic”. Article Name:School put transitioning girl, 8, ‘on a path to self-destruction’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Telegraph Reporters Start Page:10 End Page:10

Friday Total: 4

The Guardian [0]
The Times [1]
Transphobia drives Trump TMS diary@thetimes.co.uk | @timesdiary Jack Blackburn With Donald Trump leaving Britain and France to support Ukraine, the entente is now not just cordiale but essentielle. Nevertheless, we two old allies are even older enemies, and there’s room for mockery still. In this case, France has been laughing at our not exactly independent nuclear deterrent which is leased from the US. Satirical paper Le Canard enchaîné pointed this out and now President Macron is waving his missiles in our face, saying that France’s nukes are “independent from beginning to end” — end being the operative word when it comes to nuclear weapons. At least the French are also having a laugh at Trump. Their joke is: “Of course he is now against the transatlantic alliance. Trump hates anything trans.”
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [3]
Telegraph cleared over transgender term The Daily Telegraph7 Mar 2025 The use of the term “biological male” when describing a trans athlete has been vindicated after The Telegraph described a transgender footballer signed for a women’s team as a biological male. The player complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the term constituted a “transphobic dog whistle”. The press watchdog rejected this, saying that the use of the term was “relevant” to the issues raised by a biological male competing for a female team. Sport: Page 8 Article Name:Telegraph cleared over transgender term Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:1 End Page:1
Finally, the truth is out – fighting for women’s sport is not anti-trans Press watchdog vindicates Telegraph by ruling that the key term ‘biological male’ is justified in gender debate The Daily Telegraph7 Mar 2025Oliver Brown Chief Sports Writer Battleground: Sutton United women’s trans goalkeeper Blair Hamilton (above); boxer Imane Khelif triumphs at the Paris Olympics (left) despite failing sex tests Sex is real, and it matters. In sport, this elemental truth cannot be affirmed loudly enough. It is impossible to mount any effective defence of the female category without first stating why the inclusion of transgender athletes compromises its integrity, namely because they are biologically male. When the fundamental physiological differences related to sex – whether muscle mass, bone density, or cardiovascular capacity – directly influence performance and fairness, the very term “biological male” becomes a crucial clarifying term for the characteristics that affect competition. So far, so uncontroversial, you might think. And yet when I described Blair Hamilton, a transgender goalkeeper signed for Sutton United Women by a transgender manager, as a biological male in these pages last September, the player complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the label constituted a “transphobic dog whistle”. According to this argument, the description disregarded Hamilton’s “lived experience and affirmed gender identity”, not to mention “personal journey as a transgender woman”. Six months on, the press watchdog has rejected this complaint, instead determining that Telegraph Sport’s use of the term was “genuinely relevant” to the issues raised by a biologically male goalkeeper competing for a female football team. “The committee did not consider that the term in the context in which it had been used was belittling or demeaning to the complainant, nor insulting in a manner that it considered pejorative or prejudicial,” it added. The verdict marks a significant watershed. It can seem sometimes in this debate as if we have passed through the looking glass, with years of pandering to self-id lobbyists threatening a situation where athletes had to be accepted as whatever sex they purported to be. Somehow, this fallacy reached the highest levels of global sport, with the International Olympic Committee’s former medical director Dr Richard Budgett infamously declaring in 2021: “Everybody accepts that trans women are women.” Au contraire, Dr Budgett. In 2025, the conclusion of the UK press regulator flies in the face of that ludicrous pronouncement, supporting a report that trans women are in fact biological males – and establishing that it is legitimate for journalists to remind their readers of this essential, indisputable fact. Welcoming the Telegraph vindication, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, said of IPSO’S “genuinely relevant” finding: “Sports encapsulate the relevance in very compelling ways. I still can’t believe that biological sex is considered in many circles to be equivalent to the N-word: heretical, outdated, delusional, irrelevant, and hateful. This in 2025.” Sharron Davies, swimming’s former Olympic silver medallist who has campaigned tirelessly for fair sport for women, said: “I’m extremely happy to see that common sense has won the day and that we can call male footballers stealing places from female athletes, in a category for females, exactly what they are: biological males. How insane that we are even in this ridiculous position. I thank the Telegraph for fighting for fair and safe sport for all our young women. We must stand together and say, ‘No more’.” The IPSO ruling places the immutable laws of human biology above emotive personal testimony. Hamilton, who in addition to being a goalkeeper in a women’s team is an academic specialising in the impact of gender-affirmative care on the athletic performance of transgender athletes, had appealed for a definition of womanhood “beyond mere anatomy”, rejecting any reference to being biologically male on the grounds that this “inaccurately reflected an outdated understanding that did not account for the complexity of gender”. Except anatomy is not some frivolous detail here. It is the centrepiece of the discussion: that men and women are different, and that the delineation of sports by sex serves as a crucial protection for fairness and safety. For too long, there has been a form of coerced speech on this subject, where pronouns mattered more than practicalities, where affirmation was prized above accuracy. It is still enraging to recall Thomas Bach, the outgoing IOC president, declaring at the height of last summer’s boxing scandal at the Paris Olympics that womanhood could somehow be validated by an “F” in an athlete’s passport. But by degrees, the atmosphere is changing. Only last month, World Athletics announced plans to include a cheek swab test for all elite athletes who wanted to compete as women. The message is unmistakable: that the only true gauge of eligibility is biology. Now journalists should no longer feel cowed into toeing the activists’ line. It is critical that all those seeking to report the science are not intimidated into falsifying reality or fooling their readership. I hope, too, that this IPSO decision has repercussions beyond the industry. I know of academics who have been furiously rebuked within their profession for going down the “biological male” route, even when they are guilty of nothing more than the faithful recording of facts. So, let us throw out the reflexive accusations of transphobia once and for all. This, ultimately, is about honest and transparent reporting of an issue at the heart of fair play. “Transphobic dog whistle”? How about just settling for the truth? Article Name:Finally, the truth is out – fighting for women’s sport is not anti-trans Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:Oliver Brown Chief Sports Writer Start Page:8 End Page:8
Treat bearded trans workers as women, NHS staff asked The Daily Telegraph7 Mar 2025By Simon Johnson Scottish Political editor NHS staff should treat trans colleagues with beards as women if they self-identify as female, official guidance has said. Training materials for NHS Scotland workers asked them to consider the fictional case of “Lucy”, a 29-year-old trans nurse who had yet to formally change their name from Lee. The cultural humility training module stated that Lucy “is still producing facial hair which is exposed” and that some other staff are unhappy correcting patients when they use male terms to describe the nurse. The module stated that “discrimination against Lucy will not be tolerated” and the staff “have a duty (under equality law) to use the correct name and pronouns for Lucy”. In addition, the training endorses the rollout of gender-neutral lavatories, claiming they “promote equality by eliminating the need for people to conform to traditional gender norms”. The training scenarios, prepared by the NHS Education for Scotland (NES) agency, also said that people can decide for themselves “whether they identify as disabled”. The content of the materials was disclosed by The Times as John Swinney was forced to deny that Scotland’s gender self-id policies are “state sponsored abuse of human rights”.
‘It’s nonsensical to demand staff ignore biological reality and participate in an enforced illusion’ Ash Regan, a former SNP minister who quit Nicola Sturgeon’s government in protest at self-id legislation, told the First Minister to apologise to women for the “attack” on women’s rights. Mr Swinney told First Minister’s Questions at Holyrood that he had shown “leadership” on the protection of women and girls. However, he recently backed the right of trans Scottish government staff who self-identify as women to use female lavatories and changing rooms. The exchanges came in the wake of an employment tribunal in Scotland about the right of trans people to access female-only areas. NHS Fife accused Sandie Peggie, a nurse, of misconduct after she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, who was born male but identifies as a woman, in female facilities at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. Stephen Kerr, a Scottish Tory MSP, said “It is nonsensical to demand staff and patients ignore biological reality and participate in an enforced illusion. The training materials were produced in December 2023. But after being approached for comment, NES deleted the scenario on gender neutral bathrooms. An NES spokesman said: “The Times article is incorrect. We are not telling staff what to do or say. This is simply a document to help staff discuss equality topics in the workplace.”
Why I’m sounding the alarm on the next trans scandal It beggars belief that, after the Cass Review, we would even consider a clinical trial of puberty blockers The Daily Telegraph7 Mar 2025david Bell Dr David Bell was a governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Few issues in contemporary medicine have generated as much controversy as the use of puberty blockers in gender distressed children. The Government, responding to the findings of the Cass Review, has rightly banned the prescription of these drugs. Many other countries have, too. However the Government last week announced an £11 million clinical trial of these medicines to gather evidence of their effects. This raises a fundamental question: can a clinical trial of puberty blockers on children experiencing gender distress be done ethically? The answer, upon scrutiny, is a resounding “no”. I have witnessed firsthand the grave dangers posed by the rush to medicalise childhood gender distress. As a former psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, I was one of the whistleblowers who raised concerns about the practices at the now shuttered Gender Identity Development Service (Gids). What we uncovered was a service driven more by ideology than by robust clinical reasoning. Many distressed children, often same-sex attracted and with autistic comorbidities, were put on a medical pathway to transition by some clinicians who had been captured by “trans” ideology and, as a result, cast aside ordinary sound clinical judgment. A clinical trial risks repeating these ethical failures. These trials are governed by rigorous ethical and legal standards, designed to protect participants from harm. The foundation of these standards is the Declaration of Helsinki, alongside the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the UK’S Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations. These frameworks exist to ensure that the benefits of any new medical intervention outweigh the risks. The Cass Review has made it clear that the evidence base for the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers is extraordinarily weak, and that their risks are significant. Existing studies suggest serious concerns, including negative impacts on bone density, cognitive development, and future sexual function. Further, over 95 per cent of children started on a medical pathway will proceed to cross sex hormones and many to surgical intervention. Thus starting any child on PBS is freighted with that knowledge, and of course the ethical implications of that knowledge. To be clear, the prescription of puberty blockers in the context of a trial would, in effect, introduce a known risk of systemic physical harm to a physically healthy child. To put it mildly, this is a divergence from normal clinical trial practice. One of the core principles of medical research is that a clinical trial must seek to answer a question that cannot be resolved by other means. Yet in the case of puberty blockers, safer research avenues remain unexplored. We should be conducting robust long-term follow-up studies of those who have already undergone such treatment, qualitative research into the experiences of the growing numbers of detransitioners, and further animal studies to understand the biological impact of these drugs on adolescent brain development. Another major ethical concern is the question of informed consent. Children under 16 cannot legally provide informed consent for a Clinical Trial of an Investigational Medicinal Product, meaning that parental consent would be required. Yet, given the politicised environment surrounding gender identity, it is difficult to see how true informed consent can be obtained. For example, parents, subjected to trans activist narratives claiming that refusal to provide puberty blockers increases their child’s risk of suicide, will not be in a position to make a free and uncoerced decision. The argument that puberty blockers prevent suicide is completely unsubstantiated. For example, a recent Finnish study found no significant difference in suicide rates among youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria when adjusted for mental health comorbidities. In the UK, Professor Louis Appleby, the leading authority on suicide prevention, has called for caution on the use of false assertions as regard risk of suicide in this group. Informed consent is meaningless when it is obtained under conditions of misinformation and fear. There are moments in medical history when the imperative to “pause and reflect” must override the drive to push forward. Now is one such moment. Given the absence of an established safety profile, the lack of high-quality evidence supporting their efficacy, and the well-documented risks, any such trial would violate our ethical and regulatory frameworks. The medical community, politicians, and regulators need to draw a line under this scandalous piece of medical history. Instead of experimenting on confused children with medical interventions that do more harm than good, we should be dedicating our resources to understanding and addressing the root causes of gender distress, researching psychosocial treatments and following up on the 9,000 children who went through Gids. Let us not repeat mistakes of the past. Read More at telegraph.co.uk/opinion Article Name:Why I’m sounding the alarm on the next trans scandal Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:david Bell Dr David Bell was a governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Start Page:15 End Page:15

Saturday Total: 3

The Guardian [0]
The Times [0]
Daily Mail [0]
Telegraph [3]
Newsom breaks with Democrats over trans women sports rules The Daily Telegraph - Saturday8 Mar 2025By Kieran Kelly Gavin Newsom, and This is I completely agree with you on that… it’s deeply unfair. We’ve got to own that. We’ve got to acknowledge it.” During the 75-minute show, Mr Newsom sought to distance himself from the use of pronouns, criticised Gavin Newsom is tipped to run for president in 2028 GAVIN NEWSOM said it is “deeply unfair” to allow transgender women and girls to compete in female sports in a break with many Democrats. The California governor, who is tipped to run for president in 2028, has long been seen as a trailblazer on LGBT rights, defying state law to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples in 2004 when mayor of San Francisco. He made the comments on the first episode of his podcast, where he plans to have “honest discussions with people that agree disagree with us”. His first guest, Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old Trump campaigner, had accused Democrats of being out of touch on transgender participation in sports. Mr Newsom responded: “I think it’s an issue of fairness. cancel culture and described defunding the police as “lunacy”. His comments on transgender participation in sports signal a break from his party’s position and comes just days after Democrat senators blocked a Republican bill to bar trans women and girls from female sports teams. The comments sparked a backlash from Democrats – and surprise among Republicans. “We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks,” read a statement from California’s LGBT legislative caucus. Bill Essayli, a Republican politician serving in the California State Assembly, told ABC News he was “stunned” to hear Mr Newsom’s remarks. “We’ve been saying this for years. I’m stunned today he’s admitted it. I just don’t know if it’s genuine or not, because he’s not just some political commentator, he’s the governor. “He has the ability to change this policy, and I don’t think he will,” he said. Mr Essayli called on the California governor to issue an executive order to require students to play on sports teams consistent with their sex at birth. Currently, students can play on teams consistent with their gender identity. The rule has been in place since 2013. Transgender participation in sports was repeatedly brought up by Donald Trump during his election campaign. On Feb 5, he signed an executive order that prevents transgender women from competing in female sports categories. Article Name:Newsom breaks with Democrats over trans women sports rules Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Author:By Kieran Kelly Gavin Newsom, and This is Start Page:14 End Page:14
Puberty blockers The Daily Telegraph - Saturday8 Mar 2025 In the wake of the Cass Review’s report on the use of puberty blockers in treating children presenting with confusion and distress over their gender, the government rightly acted to ban their use. The evidence of benefits was too slim, and the safety risk to those taking these drugs too great, to justify their continued prescription to vulnerable children. A temporary ban put in place in May last year was accordingly made permanent in December. While this policy remains in place, however, there now appears to be a potential backdoor to their continued use in Britain. The announcement of a clinical trial of puberty blockers in children raises the spectre of potentially large numbers receiving these drugs with the justification that the programme is necessary to gather evidence on their efficacy. But the suspicion remains that this is merely a politically acceptable cover for their continued provision. There is a growing body of literature on the effects of giving puberty blockers to children, and a known risk profile associated with their use. There seems to be little justification for this new trial, even if it would be ideologically convenient for progressive activists. Instead of pouring millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into this project, it would surely be better if the Government were to follow up on the outcomes of those treated prior to the ban. As things stand, we appear to be preparing to treat another generation of children as guinea pigs. Article Name:Puberty blockers Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Start Page:15 End Page:15
Way of the World Michael Deacon The Daily Telegraph - Saturday8 Mar 2025 No matter what Donald Trump may have done in the past week or so, I doubt many Americans regret voting for him yet. If only because the Democrats seem hell-bent on reminding them why they did. Take what happened on Thursday. Gavin Newsom – the Democratic governor of California – had just plucked up the courage to admit that letting trans women (ie, males) compete in female sports is “unfair”. Well, of course it’s unfair. And in contact sports, actively dangerous. Inevitably, though, almost the entire American Left reacted as if Mr Newsom had just called for a cull of every kitten in the country. “Newsom Condemned for ‘Throwing Trans People Under Bus’,” reported The Guardian. Numerous activists denounced him (“profoundly sickened”, “shocking and offensive”), and declared that his comments would severely harm his chances of being the Democrats’ next pick for president. Plainly these gibbering fanatics are still incapable of seeing why their behaviour is so damaging to their party. It’s not that voters necessarily care about trans issues, or even about women’s sports. It’s that they can’t take seriously anyone in politics who claims to believe that males and females are equal in height, weight, speed and strength. Naturally enough, voters think: “These people must be either lying, or mad. Either way, I don’t want them in charge. In comparison, they’ve actually managed to make Trump look honest and sane.” No doubt everyone in Britain will have eagerly welcomed the news that, under revised sentencing guidelines, criminals who are deemed to come from marginalised minority groups (for example, those who are black or Muslim) could be given sentences that are more “carefully considered”. I’m sure we can all agree that this scrupulously fair plan will heal divisions in our fractured society, bring communities together and end racism once and for all. None the less, I fear that it may yet prove to have one small downside. Which is that white criminals will cynically try to wangle softer sentences by claiming they come from marginalised minorities, too. Take redheads. Mick Hucknall, the singer with Simply Red, once angrily insisted that making fun of people with ginger hair (such as him) is akin to racism. Lily Cole, the redheaded model, has also argued that these two forms of prejudice are “not dissimilar”. If so, why shouldn’t a criminal with ginger hair demand that, during sentencing, the judge take into account the lifetime of cruel discrimination that he has been forced to endure, on account of his carrot top? He might even argue that his descent into criminality was a direct result of the understandable anger and alienation he felt in response to our society’s endemic anti-ginger bigotry. Ultimately, therefore, his crimes were society’s fault, not his own. Many liberal-minded modern judges, I suspect, would readily accept such an argument, and let the poor marginalised criminal walk free on the spot. Although of course they might end up regretting it, once every single defendant starts turning up to court in a See You, Jimmy wig. Hey guys! It’s Meghan Sussex here, with another episode of my new Netflix series, filled with incredible tips on how to elevate your lifestyle so it can be almost as perfect as mine. So far I’ve shared some of my most amazing secrets, like how to put some pasta into a pan, how to put bits of food you aren’t going to eat into the food bin, and how to blow up some balloons. But today I’m going to share my most useful lesson of all. How to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. First of all, you’ll need some eggs. You can easily get these from one of the hens in the grounds of your beautiful Californian home, but don’t worry if you don’t have time to run your own artisan poultry farm – these days, eggs are also available in many local grocery stores, and even supermarkets! Next, you’ll need a grandmother. As a little girl growing up in LA, I always loved grandmothers. They truly are the most adorable little old ladies. My husband used to have a grandmother, and I was so hyped to teach her the secrets of how to suck eggs, but sadly, certain unnamed members of the Royal household chose to deny her that opportunity. I guess it’s not for me to say why they might have been so rigidly opposed to the Queen of England receiving some much-needed expert advice from a woman of colour. So I’ll just leave you guys to draw your own conclusions. So now you’ve got your eggs, and you’ve got your grandmother. What next? Easy. Just pop an egg into your grandmother’s mouth – and chant, “Suck it, Grandma! Suck, suck, suck!” This is the part my kids always love to help out with. They also have great fun decorating the eggs first, with colourful paints or felt-tip pens. And it’s great for Grandma, too, because sucking on an egg is so much healthier for her than sucking on a boiled sweet. Lower calories, and zero sugar! So you’ll be helping Grandma to watch her weight! That’s all for today, but tune in next time, when I’ll be showing you an incredible way to make money – using nothing more than a piece of old rope! Article Name:Way of the World Michael Deacon Publication:The Daily Telegraph - Saturday Start Page:16 End Page:16

Sunday Total: 2

The Observer [0]
The Sunday Times [1]
Mail on Sunday [0]
Sunday Telegraph [1]
Streeting to allow puberty blocker trial for children Health Secretary refuses to intervene over research that could act as a loophole to be exploited by activists The Sunday Telegraph9 Mar 2025By Michael Searles HEALTH CORRESPONDENT WES STREETING has refused to intervene in an NHS puberty blocker trial despite concerns about children’s safety. The drugs were banned last year in the wake of the independent Cass Review, which found no evidence to support their use and warned they may also disrupt brain development. But an NHS trial to examine the evidence around their use in children is awaiting the green light from the ethics regulator, which controversially approved a pilot into the drugs in 2011 but failed to ensure the results were shared. Some 6,000 children are currently on the national gender clinic waiting list and could be eligible to receive the drugs if their clinical team and parents agree. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader and former equalities minister, has led criticism of the planned trial, with campaigners expressing concern it could act as a “loophole” to be “exploited” by activists despite the ban. But the Health Secretary insisted it must go ahead to find evidence around the use of the drugs, as had been recommended by the Cass Review. A Department of Health spokesman said Mr Streeting had “been crystal clear about the need for children’s healthcare to be evidence-led” and that extending the puberty blocker ban had been “one of his first acts in office”. But Mrs Badenoch said it was “hard to believe there could ever be an ethical way of trialling these irreversible drugs for this purpose”. A spokesman for Bayswater Support Group, which advocates for evidence-based care on behalf of 600 families with trans-identifying children, said those responsible for the first trial had not been “held to account for their role in the initial Tavistock scandal” and “the whole process appears at risk of being replicated, with more children being knowingly harmed”. Keith Jordan, a spokesman for Our Duty, a support group for parents with gender-questioning children, said the first trial “should have produced clear data on the harms of this treatment pathway” and that it was “telling” that the data had been suppressed. He said the Health Research Authority (HRA) needed to “act to protect the vulnerable, not rubber-stamp another unethical experiment” and added: “We know that whenever a loophole is created activists will find ways to exploit it.” Experts have pointed to the multiple failures of the initial puberty blocker trial run by the Tavistock gender clinic and University College London, which began in 2011, and said they feared the scandal would be repeated. The “Early Intervention Study” was approved by the HRA almost 15 years ago, after initially being rejected on ethical grounds. It took nine years for the results to be published. The HRA has been criticised for failing to monitor the trial, which did not require parental consent. Puberty blockers are currently banned in the UK after Mr Streeting made a temporary suspension indefinite on the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines. But last week, it emerged that the NHS trial into the drugs, run by researchers from King’s College London, would be backed by £11million in government funding. Details of the trial have yet to be submitted to the regulator for ethical approval, it is understood. Under new legislation passed last month, clinical trials are legally required to publish a summary of results within 12 months of the end of the trial or face regulatory action by the MHRA, which also has the power to stop or halt a trial if it has concerns. A spokesman for the HRA said: “Research ethics committees do not decide what research takes place and how it is carried out. They carry out their ethical review using an established framework for the review of health and social care research in the UK.” An NHS England spokesman said the study “has been subject to independent academic peer review and a review by the National Institute for Health Care and Research committee ahead of seeking the usual strict ethical and approvals”. Article Name:Streeting to allow puberty blocker trial for children Publication:The Sunday Telegraph Author:By Michael Searles HEALTH CORRESPONDENT Start Page:13 End Page:13

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get 'The Trans Agenda' delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in 'The Trans Agenda' available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

]]>